KWL Chart¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 7 studies (4 quant-synthesis, 2 causal, 1 review), q2–q4 · 4 of 7 report an effect size

Description¶

A KWL chart is a three-column graphic organizer completed across a lesson: before instruction, students record what they already Know (K) and what they Want to know (W); after instruction, they record what they Learned (L). Developed by Ogle (1986) for expository reading, it front-loads Activation of prior knowledge and goal-setting, then closes with structured summarization.

Design Implications¶

KWL charts function as a lightweight Advance Organizers variant: the K and W columns prime relevant prior knowledge and orient attention toward specific questions, which improves encoding of new material Activating prior knowledge improves learning. [+M]. The W column converts passive reception into goal-directed reading or listening, and the L column forces retrieval and summarization, which strengthens retention beyond re-reading or passive review Advance organizers improve learning outcomes. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A pre-designed KWL chart (paper or digital), one per student or group
• A topic with enough familiar surface features that the K column is non-empty
• Access to the learning materials (readings, video, lecture) the W questions will target
• Time to revisit the chart after instruction — an L column filled in a rush defeats the purpose
• A visible chart (paper, whiteboard, or digital) with K, W, and L columns
• Time before instruction for genuine K and W generation — rushing this step reduces the routine to fill-in-the-blank compliance
• Instructional content that plausibly answers the questions students raise; the instructor should be prepared to address misconceptions surfaced in the K column
• A structured debrief when completing the L column, ideally asking students to justify each entry ("How do you know?")
• A visible three-column chart (paper, whiteboard, or digital), completed in the K/W phase before instruction and the L phase after
• Source material or a lesson to organize — the chart frames a text, unit, or case study
• Teacher facilitation: students' K entries often contain misconceptions that need gentle surfacing, not silent recording
• Time for discussion so the W column generates genuine questions rather than compliance answers
• A three-column chart (Know, Want to know, Learned) on a shared display or individual sheet
• A brief class discussion for the K and W phases, so misconceptions surface publicly
• Instructional content that genuinely answers some of the W questions — the chart must connect to what follows
• Time reserved for the L phase; skipping it reduces the routine to a warm-up activity

Constraints¶

• Effectiveness depends on the accuracy of students' initial knowledge; misconceptions recorded in the K column and never challenged can be reinforced rather than corrected [~M]
• Entries can become superficial lists if the W column is not revisited during instruction and the L column is not compared against it
• Less useful for entirely novel topics where students have no prior knowledge to activate — the K column produces guessing rather than priming
• As a generic organizer, it adds little for learners who already have strong self-questioning and summarization strategies [~W]
• The K column can reinforce misconceptions if students list inaccurate "facts" that are never explicitly corrected during instruction [-M]
• The L column invites copying from the text rather than generative summarization; without prompts to paraphrase or connect, entries become shallow extraction [-W]
• Effectiveness drops when the W column is ignored — if instruction does not visibly answer students' questions, the goal-setting benefit is lost and engagement declines [~M]
• Less effective for topics where students have genuinely no prior knowledge to activate; the K column then produces guessing that may be encoded as fact [-W]
• Unfacilitated K columns can reinforce misconceptions by having students record and commit to inaccurate prior knowledge [~M] — the teacher must treat K entries as hypotheses to test, not facts to preserve
• Becomes a rote fill-in-the-sheet ritual when the W column is not genuinely used to steer the lesson [-W]
• The L column invites listing of surface facts rather than reflection unless prompts push for "how does this change what I thought?" [~W]
• Low payoff for learners with substantial prior knowledge, for whom the K phase adds little activation value [~M]
• If the K phase is done silently and uncorrected, students may consolidate misconceptions rather than surface them [-M]
• Listing "what you know" can consume instructional time without adding learning when students have little relevant prior knowledge [~M]
• The L column often becomes a copy-out-the-facts exercise; without prompts to compare L against K and W, it produces shallow listing rather than reflection [-W]
• Effectiveness drops when the chart is treated as a compliance worksheet rather than a genuine discussion record [-W]

Implementation Variability¶

• KWL+ / KWHL: add an H column ("How will I find out?") to make the search process explicit, or a final "+" for new questions raised
• Individual, pair, or whole-class: whole-class charting surfaces diverse prior knowledge and misconceptions for discussion; individual charts add retrieval practice
• Digital variants: shared documents or whiteboard tools (e.g., Jamboard, Padlet) allow live addition to the L column during instruction
• KWL+ / KWHL: add a fourth column — How will I find out (KWHL) or How does this connect to what I know (KWL+) — to make the inquiry process explicit
• KWLQ: a final Question column for new questions raised, sustaining inquiry beyond the lesson
• Digital variants: shared documents or tools like Padlet allow collaborative K/W brainstorming and revisiting the chart asynchronously
• Individual vs. collective: whole-class charts surface diverse prior knowledge and misconceptions for discussion; individual charts elicit more honest self-assessment
• KWL+ / KWHL: add a fourth column — How will I find out (KWHL) or What more do I want to know (KWL+) — to extend the routine into inquiry planning and self-regulated learning
• Group KWL: complete the chart collaboratively on a shared board, using it as a running anchor chart across a multi-week unit
• Digital KWL: shared documents or tools like Padlet allow revisiting and annotating the chart throughout the unit rather than completing it once
• KWL+ / KWHL: add a fourth column — How will I find out (KWHL) or What more do I want to know (KWL+) — to extend the routine into inquiry planning and metacognitive monitoring
• KLEW: replace L with Learning evidence and add Evidence and We still wonder columns, suited to science inquiry
• Digital versions (shared documents, Padlet boards) allow asynchronous completion and make the W questions visible throughout a unit
• Individual charts suit reading comprehension; whole-class charts suit unit launches and class discussion

Target Learners¶

• All grade levels; especially valuable for elementary and intermediate readers approaching expository text Advance organizers improve learning outcomes. [+M]
• Multilingual learners and students with limited background knowledge, for whom the K column surfaces partial knowledge that can be built on
• Less beneficial for advanced learners who already self-monitor comprehension [~W]
• Elementary and secondary students reading expository text, where the routine was developed and most validated [~M]
• Multilingual learners, when the K column lets them contribute knowledge in either language and lowers the entry barrier to a new topic
• Less valuable for advanced learners with well-organized domain knowledge, for whom the K column adds little and may feel redundant [~M]
• Novices and intermediate learners encountering an unfamiliar topic, where activation and structure matter most Graphic organizers support comprehension for novice learners. [+M]
• All grade levels; the format scales from early readers (drawn/dictated entries) to adult learners
• Less valuable for expert learners, whose prior knowledge is already well-organized [~M]
• Elementary and middle-grade students encountering expository text or a new content unit, where the structure externalizes planning they cannot yet do unaided [~M]
• English learners and students with limited background knowledge, for whom the K discussion makes the knowledge landscape visible before reading [~W]
• Less beneficial for learners with strong prior knowledge, for whom the K phase adds little beyond what they already do spontaneously [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Prior-knowledge activation and misconception surfacing
• Goal-setting and purposeful engagement with informational text or lectures
• Summarization and metacognitive reflection on what was learned
• Prior knowledge activation and misconception diagnosis before instruction
• Purpose-setting and question formulation for reading or inquiry
• Metacognitive monitoring: comparing what was learned against what was wanted
• Summarization and consolidation of expository content
• Comprehension monitoring and metacognitive reflection
• Question generation and purpose-setting for reading or inquiry
• Prior knowledge activation and schema preparation before reading or instruction
• Question generation and purpose setting — students learn to interrogate a topic rather than receive it
• Metacognitive monitoring: comparing the L column against K and W makes students notice what changed and what remains unknown
• Vocabulary and concept development in content-area literacy

Instructions¶

1. Distribute the chart and have students list everything they know about the topic in the K column (Activation); discuss entries to surface misconceptions.
2. Have students generate questions they want answered in the W column; keep these visible during instruction.
3. Deliver the lesson (reading, video, lecture), pausing to check which W questions have been answered (Annotating the chart mid-lesson helps).
4. After the lesson, students complete the L column, ideally cross-referencing each entry against a W question and noting unanswered questions (Application).
5. Use the completed chart as a formative assessment: gaps between W and L reveal what needs reteaching.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the K column is a structured instance of this broader strategy
• Anticipation Guide — a related pre-reading organizer that uses agreement with statements instead of open listing
• Concept Mapping — a more structurally demanding organizer; KWL is a lower-floor alternative
• Anticipation Guides — an alternative pre-reading activation format that adds prediction and commitment
• Exit Tickets — a lighter-weight post-lesson reflection that serves the L function alone
• Advance Organizers — the element family KWL charts belong to; both provide pre-structural scaffolds for new material
• Anticipation guides — a related pre-reading routine that activates prior knowledge through prediction rather than listing
• Question-answering and question-generation routines — the W column is a scaffolded version of self-questioning
• Exit tickets — a compressed, post-only alternative to the L phase
• Integrate metacognitive strategy instruction across content areas and across before, during, and after phases of teaching

Examples¶

• Before a unit on rainforests, students fill the K column with facts ("it rains a lot," "there are monkeys") and W questions ("why are there so many species?"), then complete L after the unit — the classic Ogle (1986) classroom implementation.
• Understood.org — provides downloadable KWL templates and guidance on using advance organizers with diverse learners.
• Reading Rockets (readingrockets.org) — publishes KWL classroom routines for expository text in elementary reading instruction.
• Expository reading (Ogle's original use): before a unit on rainforests, students list known facts and questions in K and W; after reading, they complete L and verify which questions were answered. See Reading Rockets' KWL overview.
• Understood.org — KWL charts as an accommodation for students with learning and attention differences, providing structure for organizing new information.
• Science inquiry (KWHL): before a unit on electricity, students add a "How will we find out?" column, turning the chart into a plan for hands-on investigation.
• Elementary science unit on weather: Students list known weather facts (K), ask "why do tornadoes happen?" (W), and after the unit revise their K list, crossing out misconceptions — making conceptual change visible.
• Reading Rockets — publishes classroom-tested KWL procedures and printable templates for literacy instruction.
• Adult ESL / EFL reading courses: KWL is widely used to frame expository texts; the W column sets a purpose for reading, and the L column doubles as a summary-writing scaffold.
• Ogle's original DRTA-derived routine (Ogle, 1986): fifth-grade students completed group KWL charts before reading expository passages, with the teacher modeling how to generate W questions from the topic.
• Science unit launches (KLEW variant): teachers using the KLEW chart (e.g., in elementary science methods texts based on Hapgood & Magnusson, 2007) have students tie each "Learning" entry to specific evidence from investigations, connecting the chart to scientific practices.
• Content-area literacy programs: widely used in reading workshop models and district literacy frameworks (e.g., Reading Rockets' KWL templates, https://www.readingrockets.org) as a standard pre-reading organizer for informational text.

Key Sources¶

• Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570. doi:10.1598/rt.39.6.11
• Carr, E., & Ogle, D. M. (1987). K-W-L Plus: A strategy for comprehension and summarization. Journal of Reading, 30(7), 626–631.
• Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Donoghue, N., & Hiebert, E. H. (2015). KWL and expository text comprehension. In Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 233–250). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357–371. doi:10.1007/BF01463939
• Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987). KWL Plus: A strategy for comprehension and summarization. Journal of Reading, 30(7), 626–631.
• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
• Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 259–274). Guilford Press.
• Hapgood, S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2007). Where does goal-directed behavior come from? How children's scientific minds are constructed. Science Education, 91(1), 102–116.