Text Illustrations With Graphic Organizers¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 8 claims (4 for, 2 mixed, 2 against) · 21 studies (10 causal, 6 review, 4 quant-synthesis, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 6 of 21 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Text illustrations with graphic organizers pair written expository or argumentative text with a spatial diagram — a matrix, hierarchy, flowchart, or concept map — that represents the text's key ideas and their relationships. The organizer may be provided by the instructor as a reading aid or constructed by learners after reading as a summarization activity. Unlike decorative illustrations, these organizers encode relational structure (comparisons, sequences, classifications) that prose conveys only linearly.

Design Implications¶

Pairing text with a structure-preserving graphic exploits dual-channel processing: verbal and visual representations are encoded separately and can be integrated, yielding richer mental models than either alone Multimedia materials that combine words and pictures improve learning over words alone. [+M]. Organizers are most effective when they mirror the rhetorical structure of the text (comparison → matrix; sequence → flowchart) rather than serving as generic decoration. Learner-constructed organizers generally outperform passive viewing of instructor-provided ones, though provided organizers help novices most Providing learners with graphic organizers can be less effective than having them construct their own. [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Text with an identifiable relational structure worth externalizing (compare/contrast, hierarchy, causal chain, classification)
• An organizer type matched to that structure, not chosen arbitrarily
• Brief instruction in how to read or build the organizer, so the diagram itself does not become a decoding burden
• For learner-constructed versions: a model or worked example of organizer construction (Demonstration)

Constraints¶

• Poorly matched organizers add extraneous load: learners must reconcile a diagram that contradicts or distorts the text's structure Organizers that duplicate or distort text structure impose extraneous processing. [-M]
• Decorative or redundant graphics that merely repeat text verbatim can depress learning by encouraging shallow processing Graphics that are decorative rather than explanatory do not improve learning. [-M]
• Overly dense organizers with excessive detail can overload working memory; keep to the text's core structure Chunking information into organized units reduces working memory load. [+S]
• For learners with strong prior knowledge, provided organizers can be redundant and interfere with fluent text processing Guidance becomes less effective — and can reverse — as learner expertise increases. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Provided (instructor-built): embedded before or alongside reading as an advance organizer; best for novices and dense texts
• Learner-constructed (post-reading): functions as generative summarization; best for consolidation and transfer
• Partially completed (skeleton) organizers: learners fill in nodes or links; a middle ground that fades support
• Collaborative construction: pairs or groups negotiate the organizer, adding elaborative discussion

Target Learners¶

• Novices reading unfamiliar expository text, who lack the schemas to extract structure unaided Organizing text structure externally supports comprehension for low-prior-knowledge readers. [+M]
• Struggling readers and learners with disabilities, for whom explicit structure display reduces processing demands Mnemonic and structured instruction improves recall for students with disabilities. [+M]
• Less beneficial for expert readers of a domain, who build structure representations automatically Guidance becomes less effective — and can reverse — as learner expertise increases. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Comprehension of relational structure: comparisons, hierarchies, causal sequences in expository text
• Summarization and knowledge consolidation after reading
• Transfer-appropriate organization of knowledge for later writing or argumentation

Instructions¶

1. Identify the dominant rhetorical structure of the text (comparison, sequence, hierarchy, cause–effect).
2. Select the organizer type that maps onto that structure; sketch it before the lesson (Advance Organizers).
3. Decide the support level: fully provided, skeleton, or blank, based on learner expertise (Fading).
4. Introduce the organizer with a brief demonstration of how it maps onto a sample passage (Demonstration).
5. Have learners read the text with the organizer, or complete it after reading (Annotating).
6. Debrief by having learners explain relationships shown in the organizer in their own words, converting the spatial representation back into elaborated verbal knowledge.

Related Strategies¶

• Advance Organizers — the before-reading variant; text illustrations typically operate during or after reading
• Concept Mapping — learner-generated node-and-link diagrams; the most open-ended organizer form
• Summarization — organizer construction is a structured, spatial form of summarizing
• Annotating — complementary text-marking strategy operating on the text itself rather than beside it
• Use tablet computers in Response to Intervention for self-recorded reading, electronic graphic organizers, and electronic text notation

Examples¶

• Reading apprenticeship in secondary science — students complete a compare/contrast matrix after reading paired passages on photosynthesis and respiration, making the shared structure visible.
• Newsela — leveled expository articles paired with teacher-provided graphic organizer templates keyed to article structure.
• Reading Rockets — published library of text-structure organizers (cause/effect chains, problem/solution frames) for K–12 expository reading instruction.
• History argument writing — students map claims, evidence, and counterarguments from a source set onto an argument diagram before drafting an essay.

Key Sources¶

• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811678
• 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
• 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
• 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