Graphic Organizers as Thinking Tools¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 9 claims (8 for, 1 mixed) · 26 studies (11 causal, 7 quant-synthesis, 6 review, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 7 of 26 report an effect size

Description¶

Students interact with content by organizing chunks of it into graphic organizers — concept maps, matrices, Venn diagrams, flowcharts, hierarchical taxonomies — in groups, pairs, or individually, then comparing their results. The organizer is not a handout to fill in passively; it is a thinking tool that forces learners to select, relate, and structure ideas, making their mental models visible and discussable. Comparing organizers across learners surfaces alternative interpretations and drives productive discussion about similarities and differences in the content.

Design Implications¶

Graphic organizers work because they externalize relational structure: spatial arrangement and links encode how ideas connect, supporting dual coding and reducing the working-memory burden of holding relationships in mind Chunking reduces working memory load. [+S]. Meta-analytic evidence shows knowledge-map activities outperform reading or list-based study conditions on average Nesbit & Adesope meta-analysis of concept/knowledge mapping. [+M], with the strongest effects when learners construct the map themselves rather than study a completed one Learner-generated organizers outperform studying provided ones. [+M]. The organizer type should match the target structure — hierarchies for taxonomies, matrices for comparisons, causal chains for processes — and the task should require justification of placements, not just completion.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Content with genuine relational structure worth mapping; organizers add little to isolated facts
• Organizer type matched to the structure of the content (hierarchy, matrix, cycle, cause–effect)
• A comparison or discussion phase where learners defend and revise their organizations
• Templates or scaffolds for novices (Advance Organizers can seed the frame before content is encountered)
• An organizer whose structure matches the target content's logical structure (hierarchy, sequence, comparison, cause–effect)
• Content delivered in chunks that map onto organizer sections (Chunking)
• A follow-up step where learners explain or apply what they organized (Application), since the organizer alone does not guarantee understanding
• For group use, roles or prompts that ensure all students contribute to the organizing, not one student filling it in

Constraints¶

• Studying a pre-completed organizer is substantially less effective than constructing one Learner-generated organizers outperform studying provided ones. [-M] — fill-in-the-blank organizers can become low-level transcription tasks
• Poorly matched organizer types force content into an alien structure, distorting rather than clarifying relationships [~M]
• For learners with high prior knowledge, organizer scaffolds can be redundant and even depress performance Guidance becomes less effective as learner expertise increases. [~M]
• Construction takes time; the overhead can exceed benefits for simple or short content [-W]
• Fully completed organizers handed to learners produce weak learning; the benefit comes from generating the structure, not viewing it Learner-generated organizers outperform supplied ones. [-M]
• If the organizer's categories are imposed and mismatch the content, learners force-fit ideas into the wrong structure, harming schema formation [~W]
• Copy-and-paste completion (transcribing text into boxes without transformation) yields near-zero generative processing [-M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Individual → pair → whole class: learners draft alone, merge with a partner, and reconcile differences as a class — the comparison phase is where misconceptions surface
• Progressive fading: provide a fully structured organizer first, then partial frames, then a blank canvas as competence grows
• Error-based variants: give learners a deliberately flawed organizer to diagnose and repair, which builds discrimination Erroneous examples build conceptual knowledge. [+W]
• Digital tools (concept-mapping software) allow rapid reorganization and link labeling, supporting iterative revision
• During lecture: pause points where pairs complete one section of the organizer before the next segment
• With reading or video: organizer as an annotating frame students fill while consuming content
• Jigsaw variant: groups each complete a different section, then teach it to other groups
• Compare-and-contrast variant: groups complete organizers independently, then compare results across groups — discrepancies become discussion fodder (Class Discussion)
• Advance organizer variant: a partially completed organizer presented before the content primes relevant schema (Advance Organizers)

Target Learners¶

• Novices who lack a schema for the content and benefit from an external relational structure Nesbit & Adesope meta-analysis of concept/knowledge mapping. [+M]
• Learners who benefit from dual-channel presentation of verbal and spatial information Dual coding improves recall. [+M]
• Less beneficial for experts, for whom the imposed structure adds little Guidance becomes less effective as learner expertise increases. [~M]
• Learners who benefit from dual coding — verbal content re-represented spatially and visually [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Relational knowledge: understanding how concepts connect, not just what they are
• Comparative analysis: identifying similarities and differences across categories or cases
• Knowledge restructuring: revising prior misconceptions by reorganizing ideas Activation of prior knowledge improves learning. [+M]
• Metacognitive awareness: making one's own organizational assumptions visible and debatable
• Conceptual understanding: identifying relationships, similarities, and differences among ideas Learner-generated concept maps improve conceptual understanding. [+M]
• Knowledge organization: building hierarchical or sequential schema rather than isolated facts
• Abstraction from multiple examples: comparison organizers support noticing shared structure Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M]

Instructions¶

1. Select an organizer type that matches the content's structure (hierarchy, matrix, Venn, flowchart, concept map with labeled links).
2. Optionally prime the frame with an Advance Organizer so learners know what kind of structure to look for.
3. Have learners construct the organizer individually or in pairs, requiring them to Annotate links and justify placements rather than only position nodes.
4. Use Peer Collaboration to compare organizers; focus discussion on why items were placed differently.
5. Revise and consolidate, connecting the final structure to the Application task that follows.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — organizers can serve as the elicitation vehicle, surfacing existing structure before new content reshapes it
• Concept Mapping — the specific, research-dense form of this strategy using labeled propositional links
• Student-generated mapping exercise
• Advance Organizers — organizers presented before content to activate prior knowledge; this strategy uses them during and after delivery
• Comparing Cases — group comparison of completed organizers enacts the same contrasting mechanism
• Jigsaw — a cooperative structure that distributes organizer sections across groups

Related Elements¶

• Advance Organizers — a provided frame given before content, priming the structure learners will fill in
• Annotating — link labels and margin notes turn a spatial layout into explicit propositions
• Analogies — an organizer can map an unfamiliar structure onto a familiar one
• Peer Collaboration — the comparison phase that converts individual organization into discussion

Examples¶

• A foreign language class uses a hierarchical organizer to classify food vocabulary into categories (meats, fruits, vegetables), then compares trees in pairs to negotiate ambiguous items (e.g., tomato). Resource: Cult of Pedagogy, "Graphic Organizers".
• A biology course uses IHMC CmapTools for students to build labeled concept maps of the circulatory system before and after instruction, making knowledge restructuring visible.
• A history class uses a comparison matrix across three revolutions (causes, key actors, outcomes), then defends cell entries with evidence from primary sources.
• Comparison matrix in science: after a lecture on cell types, pairs complete a matrix contrasting plant, animal, and bacterial cells across structure, energy, and reproduction; groups then compare matrices and debate disputed cells.
• Flowchart with video: students watching a process video (e.g., how a bill becomes law) fill a sequential flowchart at pause points, then apply it to a novel scenario.
• Concept mapping in reading: students map characters, motivations, and conflicts from a novel, then compare maps across groups to surface different interpretations.

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
• 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
• 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. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949. doi:10.1002/tea.3660271003
• Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. ASCD.
• Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4