Graphic Organizers for Pre-Writing¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 10 studies (4 causal, 4 review, 2 quant-synthesis), q2–q4 · 2 of 10 report an effect size

Description¶

Students use a visual planning tool — a mind map, outline, story map, T-chart, or argument diagram — to generate and arrange ideas before drafting. Notes are brief phrases rather than full sentences, so working memory is spent on what to say and in what order, not on sentence construction. The organizer externalizes the planning stage of the writing process, making text structure visible before prose begins.

Design Implications¶

Planning is the writing subprocess that most strongly distinguishes skilled from unskilled writers, and explicit planning instruction is among the best-supported writing interventions A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. [+S]. Graphic organizers reduce extraneous load during composition by holding the emerging plan outside working memory Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M], and their spatial, relational format adds a second representation of the content Dual coding improves recall. [+M]. Effects on text quality are strongest when the organizer matches the rhetorical structure of the target genre and when students are taught how to use it — an unexplained template is just an empty box.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• An organizer whose structure maps onto the target genre (e.g., claim–evidence–reasoning boxes for argument; setting–problem–resolution for narrative)
• Brief teacher modeling of how to populate the organizer, ideally with a Think-Aloud showing decisions about what belongs where
• A clear handoff into drafting: the organizer should function as the skeleton of the draft, not a separate artifact
• A writing task with enough complexity that planning adds value
• An organizer whose structure matches the rhetorical task (compare/contrast grid, argument frame, narrative story map) — a generic template invites empty boxes
• A clear path from organizer to draft: each box should map onto a paragraph or section
• Time limits on planning so most instructional time goes to drafting and revising

Constraints¶

• Ineffective when students fill in organizers mechanically without understanding the underlying structure; benefits depend on explicit instruction in their use [-M]
• Poorly matched organizers (a story map for a persuasive essay) can impose a misleading structure and degrade text quality [~M]
• Over-reliance can prevent students from internalizing planning routines; organizers should fade as planning skill develops [-W]
• For short or highly familiar writing tasks, the organizer adds steps without adding value [~W]
• Filling in a teacher-provided organizer is low-yield; learners learn from generating the structure and links, not from transcribing into boxes Learner-generated organizers outperform author-provided organizers. [-S]
• Over-scaffolding can produce formulaic writing that follows the template rather than the ideas; fade the organizer as writers develop Fading support promotes transfer of responsibility. [+M]
• Organizers consume time that competes with drafting and revision; for fluent writers the planning aid may add little Graham & Perin's meta-analysis of adolescent writing instruction. [~M]
• A mismatch between organizer structure and genre (e.g., a five-paragraph frame for an open narrative) constrains thinking rather than supporting it

Implementation Variability¶

• Completed vs. partial vs. blank: begin with a teacher-completed model, move to partially filled organizers, then blank templates (Fading)
• Digital vs. paper: tools like Kidspiration/Inspiration or Popplet allow rearranging ideas after placement, which paper does not
• Collaborative filling: pairs co-construct an organizer before drafting individually, combining planning support with Collaborative Learning
• Genre-specific families: SRSD instruction teaches students to select among organizers by genre rather than always using the same one
• Learner-generated concept maps for exploratory or expository tasks, where the writer discovers the structure Nesbit & Adesope's concept-map meta-analysis. [+M]
• Genre-specific frames (story maps, argument/counterargument charts) for novice writers who need the rhetorical skeleton supplied
• Oral pre-writing (talking ideas into a partner or recorder before mapping) for learners whose ideas outrun their transcription speed
• Digital organizers (Kidspiration, Popplet, Google Jamboard) that allow easy rearrangement — a key advantage over paper for revising plans

Target Learners¶

• Novice writers and students with weak planning skills, who otherwise begin drafting with no plan Explicit planning instruction improves writing quality. [+S]
• Students with learning disabilities or ADHD, for whom external structure compensates for executive-function demands [+M]
• English learners, who benefit from the reduced language load of phrase-level planning [~M]
• Proficient writers may find mandatory organizers constraining; allow them to plan in their own format [~W]
• Novice and struggling writers, who benefit most from externalizing planning Graham & Perin's meta-analysis of adolescent writing instruction. [+S]
• English learners, who can draft ideas in the organizer before tackling sentence-level language
• Less necessary for fluent writers with well-developed internal planning routines Graham & Perin's meta-analysis of adolescent writing instruction. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Text structure knowledge: internalizing the organizational schema of a genre
• Idea generation and elaboration: producing and connecting content before drafting
• Self-regulated writing: building a planning routine students eventually apply independently
• Planning and organization: selecting, sequencing, and connecting ideas for a purpose and audience
• Genre knowledge: internalizing the structural conventions of narrative, argument, and expository forms
• Self-regulated writing: making planning an explicit, deliberate phase rather than skipping straight to drafting

Instructions¶

1. Activate prior knowledge about the topic and the genre — what does finished writing in this form look like?
2. Model filling in the organizer for a sample prompt, verbalizing decisions ("I need two reasons here, and each needs evidence").
3. Provide students a genre-matched organizer template and have them generate brief notes — phrases, not sentences — possibly with Chunking of the task into sections.
4. Have students use the organizer as a drafting map, checking off sections as they write (Practice).
5. Fade the organizer over successive tasks, moving toward independent planning (Fading).

Related Strategies¶

• SRSD (Self-Regulated Strategy Development) — embeds graphic organizers within a full self-regulation framework for writing
• Activating Prior Knowledge — the generation phase of an organizer doubles as activation
• Collaborative Writing — co-constructed planning precedes joint drafting Collaborative writing improves text quality. [+M]
• Think-Aloud Modeling — the demonstration step that makes organizer use learnable
• Peer Feedback — a natural follow-on once drafts exist
• Support English learners with sentence frames, graphic organizers, and word walls—but supplement frames with level-appropriate strategies because frames can limit the range of student responses

Examples¶

• SRSD (Self-Regulated Strategy Development) — Graham & Harris's widely researched framework uses genre-specific planning sheets (e.g., POW+TREE for persuasive writing: Topic, Reasons, Explain, Ending) as a core planning tool. Overview: https://srsd.uncg.edu
• Inspiration / Kidspiration — https://www.inspiration.com — diagramming software for webs, concept maps, and outlines that converts directly to outline view for drafting
• Read Write Think (NCTE/IRA) — free interactive organizers such as the Persuasion Map and Essay Map: https://www.readwritethink.org
• Writing Next (Graham & Perin, Carnegie Corporation) — identifies strategy instruction including planning as one of the highest-effect writing interventions for adolescents.
• The Writing Revolution — uses embedded outlines and single-paragraph organizers (T-charts, because-but-so frames) before every drafting task.
• Kidspiration / Inspiration Software — digital concept-mapping tools with an integrated outline view, letting learners toggle between map and linear plan.
• Read Write Think (NCTE/IRA) — free interactive organizers (essay map, story map, compare/contrast) that students complete online and print as drafting plans.

Key Sources¶

• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
• De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687–698. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687
• 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
• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the Common Core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 498–522. doi:10.1086/681964
• 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
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Brookes Publishing.