Graphic Organizers for Note-Taking¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 12 studies (5 review, 4 causal, 3 quant-synthesis), q2–q4 · 2 of 12 report an effect size

Description¶

Learners use graphic organizers — matrices, concept maps, Venn diagrams, flowcharts, timelines — to structure notes taken from readings, research, films, or podcasts. The instructor may pre-select an organizer matched to the content structure (e.g., a comparison matrix for contrasting theories) to promote learning efficiency, or learners may construct their own.

Design Implications¶

Graphic organizers externalize relationships among ideas, reducing the working-memory burden of holding unstructured notes while processing new input Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]. Combining verbal notes with spatial-visual structure recruits dual channels, improving recall over text-only notes Dual coding improves recall. [+M]. Meta-analytic evidence shows graphic organizers used as note-taking or study aids improve learning outcomes, with the largest gains when organizers make explicit the relations the learner must infer Graphic organizers improve learning across content areas. [+M]. Critically, the generative act of selecting, relating, and arranging information — not the visual format itself — drives the benefit; simply handing learners a completed organizer is far less effective than having them complete one Learner-generated organizers outperform provided ones. [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• An organizer whose structure matches the content's logical structure (comparison → matrix; sequence → flowchart; hierarchy → tree)
• Brief training in how to use the organizer type; learners unfamiliar with a format spend effort decoding it rather than processing content
• Source material rich enough to populate the organizer meaningfully
• Instructor modeling of how to complete the organizer (Think-Aloud or a partially completed example)
• Source material with a discernible structure (comparisons, hierarchies, sequences, causal chains)
• An organizer format matched to that structure, either pre-designed or taught
• Brief modeling of how to complete the organizer before independent use (Practice with feedback on early attempts)
• Follow-up use: organizers function best when revisited for summarizing, discussion, or retrieval, not filed away

Constraints¶

• A poorly matched organizer forces content into an alien structure and degrades learning [-M] — e.g., a linear timeline for a multi-causal argument
• Pre-completed organizers encourage passive receipt rather than generative processing [-S]; learners who receive finished organizers often study them shallowly
• Organizers can over-simplify complex, contested, or highly interconnected material, implying false clarity or a single "correct" structure [-M]
• Without training, the format itself becomes a cognitive load rather than a scaffold [-W]
• Poorly matched organizer structure can distort comprehension — forcing a comparison matrix onto narrative prose adds load rather than reducing it [~M]
• Learners with weak prior knowledge may fill in organizers mechanically without processing relationships; instructor-provided organizers with completion prompts mitigate this [-M]
• Highly disorganized or poorly structured source material resists graphic organization and yields diminishing returns [~W]
• Over-scaffolding with pre-filled organizers can become a copy task; fading the completeness of the organizer as expertise grows preserves generative processing [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Instructor-provided blank organizers — most efficient for novices; reduces format-decision load
• Learner-constructed organizers — more generative; better for learners with sufficient prior knowledge to judge what matters [~M]
• Partially completed ("skeleton") organizers — a Fading middle step; provide some cells, learners complete the rest
• Collaborative completion — pairs negotiate structure, adding Collaborative Learning benefits
• Post-hoc re-organization — learners take linear notes first, then restructure into an organizer as a second-pass synthesis activity
• Instructor-provided (scaffolded): a partially completed organizer that learners fill in during reading or viewing; strongest for novices and dense material
• Learner-generated: students choose or design the organizer themselves; stronger generative processing, better suited to learners with some topic familiarity
• Co-constructed: whole-class completion during a lecture or read-aloud, with the instructor thinking aloud about placement decisions
• Post-hoc: learners convert existing linear notes into an organizer as a consolidation activity, combining the strategy with Annotating

Target Learners¶

• Novices who lack the prior knowledge to impose structure on incoming information on their own Graphic organizers improve learning across content areas. [+M]
• Learners with weak self-regulated note-taking skills who default to verbatim transcription
• Less beneficial for experts, who already possess schemas and may find imposed structures redundant or constraining [~W]
• Less beneficial for learners with strong prior knowledge, who may find a imposed structure redundant or constraining [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Comprehension and retention of structured expository content Dual coding improves recall. [+M]
• Identifying relationships: comparisons, hierarchies, cause–effect chains, sequences
• Selective attention — deciding what is note-worthy rather than transcribing everything
• Synthesis across sources (research notes, multi-source projects)
• Comprehension of relationships: hierarchies, comparisons, cause-effect, and sequences in expository content
• Summarization and synthesis: producing an organized representation of a source as preparation for writing or discussion

Instructions¶

1. Activate prior knowledge about the topic and preview the organizer's structure so learners know what they are listening/reading for.
2. Select or co-design an organizer matched to the content's structure; model completing one section with a Think-Aloud.
3. Have learners complete the organizer during or immediately after engaging with the material, using Annotating conventions (abbreviations, symbols) to keep pace.
4. Debrief: learners compare organizers with a partner, resolving discrepancies — this comparison is where much of the learning occurs.
5. Use the completed organizer as a retrieval-practice or writing scaffold, not as an end product.

Related Strategies¶

• Advance Organizers — organizers presented before instruction to prime structure; note-taking organizers operate during and after
• Annotating — the text-marking counterpart for working directly with source documents
• Chunking — organizers group information into processable units
• Elaborative Interrogation [+M] — asking "why" and "how" questions while filling organizer cells deepens processing
• Retrieval Practice With Graphic Organizers
• Cornell note-taking — a structured linear alternative; graphic organizers trade speed of capture for explicit relational structure
• Concept mapping — the learner-generated, open-ended variant of this strategy, best when relationships are non-obvious
• Annotating — complementary; annotations capture local detail while organizers capture global structure

Examples¶

• Students complete a comparison matrix on two historical figures while reading paired biographies, then use it to draft a compare–contrast essay (see Cult of Pedagogy's graphic organizer collection).
• Newsela and ReadWorks pair leveled articles with downloadable organizers (cause–effect charts, main-idea webs) aligned to each text.
• Khan Academy unit notes and many AP course frameworks provide concept-map templates students populate while watching videos.
• In a research-methods course, students use a source-evaluation grid (claim / evidence / method / limitation) to take notes across multiple papers, then synthesize across rows.
• A middle-school science class uses a cause-effect flowchart while watching a documentary on the carbon cycle, then reconstructs the chart from memory the next day as a retrieval activity.
• An AP US History course provides a partially completed comparison matrix (economy, leadership, causes) that students complete while reading competing textbook accounts of the Civil War.
• Newsela (https://newsela.com) pairs leveled articles with downloadable graphic organizers (main idea, cause-effect, argument) aligned to each text.
• ReadWorks (https://www.readworks.org) attaches organizer printables to many of its reading passages for classroom use.

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
• Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240–245. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240
• Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students "partially involved" in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119–134. doi:10.1080/00220970009598498
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107707085
• Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316941355