Graphic Organizers for Pre-Reading¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (4 for, 1 mixed) · 13 studies (5 review, 4 causal, 4 quant-synthesis), q2–q4 · 4 of 13 report an effect size

Description¶

Students identify the text structure (compare/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution, sequence) before reading and complete a graphic organizer that mirrors that structure as they read. The organizer functions as an Advance Organizer: it provides a skeletal framework that learners populate during reading, converting prose into a spatial representation of the text's logic. KWL charts and similar pre-reading frames also activate prior knowledge and set a purpose for reading.

Design Implications¶

Graphic organizers reduce extraneous load during reading by externalizing the text's macrostructure, letting working memory attend to meaning-making rather than holding intermediate ideas Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]. Their effectiveness depends on matching the organizer to the actual text structure — a mismatched organizer forces learners to impose the wrong schema Advance organizers improve learning. [~M]. Combining verbal and spatial representation also exploits dual coding, giving learners two retrieval routes into the content Dual coding improves recall. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Reading materials whose structure can be reliably identified in advance
• Organizer templates matched to common expository structures (compare/contrast matrix, cause/effect chain, timeline, problem/solution frame)
• Brief Demonstration of how to identify the structure and populate the organizer, especially for students new to the practice
• Activation of prior knowledge before reading (e.g., the K and W columns of a KWL chart)
• A text whose structure is identifiable and matches the organizer chosen
• Organizer templates matched to the five common expository structures (description, sequence, compare/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution)
• A follow-up use for the completed organizer (discussion, writing, summarizing) so it is not an end in itself

Constraints¶

• Students must be taught to identify text structures; without this training they cannot select or benefit from a structure-matched organizer [-M]
• Organizers can oversimplify complex or multi-structural texts, imposing a single schema on layered argumentation [~M]
• Pre-filled or overly detailed organizers encourage copying rather than comprehension; learners who complete organizers passively show weaker gains than those who must generate the relations themselves [~M]
• Benefits diminish for skilled readers with strong prior knowledge of the topic, for whom the organizer adds redundant processing [~M]
• Generic or mismatched organizers add extraneous load: forcing a compare/contrast frame onto a sequential text misdirects attention [~M]
• If the organizer is completed mechanically (copying facts into boxes) without discussion of relationships, gains shrink to note-taking benefits [~M]
• Students with strong prior knowledge of the topic may gain little, since the organizer's main work — building a structure to receive new information — is already done [~W]
• Over-reliance can leave students dependent on external frames; organizers should be faded toward student-generated structure maps [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Structure-identified: teacher names the structure and supplies the matching organizer (strongest for novices)
• Structure-hunted: students infer the structure from a preview, then select an organizer (builds transferable structure awareness)
• KWL charts: activate prior knowledge and set purpose; weaker structure support but strong Activation function
• Partially completed organizers: some cells pre-filled to model the format, remaining cells completed during reading (a form of Fading)
• Teacher-completed partial organizers: some components pre-filled to model the mapping, students complete the rest
• Student-selected organizers: after structure identification, students choose or sketch the frame themselves — higher transfer demand
• Signal-word preview: before reading, students hunt for structure cues ("however," "as a result," "first… then") to justify their organizer choice
• Post-reading extension: the same organizer becomes a writing frame for a summary or response

Target Learners¶

• Elementary through secondary students reading expository text, particularly struggling readers and English learners Advance organizers improve learning. [+M]
• Students with limited prior knowledge of the topic, who benefit most from the activated schema and structural frame
• Less beneficial for advanced readers already familiar with the text structure and topic [~M]
• Elementary and middle-grade readers encountering expository text, where structure awareness is still developing [+M]
• Students with learning disabilities and struggling readers, who benefit disproportionately from explicit structure supports Graphic organizer instruction improves recall for students with learning disabilities. [+M]
• English learners, for whom the visual frame makes relational language ("in contrast," "consequently") visible
• Less valuable for proficient readers with relevant background knowledge, who typically construct structure spontaneously [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension of expository and informational text
• Text-structure awareness: recognizing compare/contrast, cause/effect, and problem/solution patterns as transferable schemas
• Prior-knowledge activation and purpose-setting before reading Activation improves learning. [+M]
• Summarization and note-taking from informational sources
• Expository reading comprehension: identifying and using text macrostructure
• Content-area learning: retaining relational knowledge in science and social studies texts
• Transfer to writing: composing texts that follow the structures students have mapped

Instructions¶

1. Preview the text and identify its dominant structure (or have students infer it from headings and a first-draft skim).
2. Select or have students select the organizer that matches that structure.
3. Activate prior knowledge: brainstorm what students already know and what they want to learn (KWL "K" and "W" columns).
4. Demonstrate completing one section of the organizer with a think-aloud, modeling how textual signals ("however," "as a result") map to organizer cells.
5. Students read and complete the organizer, using Annotating to mark structure signals in the text.
6. Debrief: students use the completed organizer to summarize or discuss, converting the visual frame back into connected prose.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the KWL "K" phase is a pre-reading activation routine that pairs naturally with organizers
• Annotating — marking structure signals in the text complements populating the organizer
• Question-Answer Relationships — another comprehension strategy that sets a purpose before reading
• Advance Organizers — the Ausubelian parent concept; pre-reading graphic organizers are a concrete, structure-specific form
• Offer a structured advance organizer before the full article for readers who benefit from one

Related Elements¶

• Advance Organizers — the theoretical ancestor; Ausubel's framework for providing an anchoring structure before learning
• Demonstration — modeling how to identify structure and fill the organizer
• Activation — the pre-reading knowledge-elicitation step
• Chunking — organizers segment text into manageable structural units

Patterns That Use This Strategy¶

• Direct Instruction — the teacher-led modeling and guided completion sequence
• Reciprocal Teaching — organizers can serve as the concrete support for the predicting and summarizing roles

Examples¶

• Students use a cause-and-effect chain diagram while reading about the American Revolution, first identifying "cause/effect" from the chapter headings and a teacher think-aloud. See Cult of Pedagogy's graphic organizer collection.
• Reading Rockets provides structure-matched organizer templates (compare/contrast matrix, story map, KWL) with implementation guidance: https://www.readingrockets.org/classroom/classroom-strategies/graphic-organizers
• A science teacher uses a problem/solution frame for a text on ocean acidification, pre-filling the "problem" cell to model the format before students complete the rest during reading.
• Text Structure Project (Williams, 2005) — instructional program teaching compare/contrast structure with a "one-sentence frame" and graphic organizer to young readers and students with disabilities; consistent gains in comprehension of structured texts.
• Content-area reading routines — a science teacher previews a problem/solution article on invasive species with a two-column problem/solution chart, models entering the first problem, and students complete the chart during reading before drafting an argument paragraph from it.
• Reading Rockets — publishes ready-made structure-specific organizer templates (sequence chains, cause/effect T-charts, Venn diagrams) for classroom use (readingrockets.org).

Key Sources¶

• Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11–17.
• 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
• Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.
• Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18. doi:10.1177/00224669050390010201
• Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for elementary-school students: A narrative synthesis. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 243–262). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320.
• Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118.
• Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 331–346.
• Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103.