What is the importance of using graphic organizers in enhancing content schema in reading?

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.3, 348-356

Published Online June 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.33055

Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .

348

Graphic Organizers as a Reading Strategy:

Research Findings and Issues

Polyxeni Manoli, Maria Papadopoulou

Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

Email: ,

Received April 10th, 2012; revised M ay 8th, 2012; accepted May 27th, 2012

The present article extends prior research on graphic organizers mainly used as a reading strategy.

Graphic strategies, visual representation of information in a text, refer to different approaches to reading

from the traditional, linear text representation. This study constitutes an attempt to shed light on the re-

search evidence regarding the effectiveness of GOs on text learning and the various types of graphic or-

ganizers, which use different conventions to communicate information and are classified in various ways.

As such, it highlights key concepts, the theoretical and historical foundations of graphic organizers, in-

cludes the major types of graphic organizers, summarizes research findings, recommends ways of inte-

grating them in reading lessons, touches on the issue of strategy instruction and its effects on language

learning and leaves room for further exploration.

Keywords: Graphic Organizers; Reading Comprehension; Reading Strategies

Introduction

The present article focuses on Graphic Organizers (GOs) as a

reading strategy used both in the teaching and learning of lan-

guages and in content areas, like science, social studies. When

GOs are used in the various content areas, the main goal is to

boost comprehension skills in the target subject area, whereas,

when they are deployed in the various language courses, the

main aims are to improve students’ reading comprehension

skills and contribute to the acquisition of the target language.

An attempt was made to include a number of studies that are

representative of research on GOs. A thorough research was

conducted on data bases like ERIC, jstor and EBSCOhost for

GOs using the following descriptors: advance organizers, gra-

phic organizers, visual displays or diagrams, cognitive mapping,

concept mapping, knowledge maps, reading comprehension and

reading strategies. At the same time, citations from articles and

reviews were used.

The aim of this study is to summarize what research findings

revealabout the effectiveness of GOson deriving meaning

from texts. It relates their use to the facilitation of reading com-

prehension skills, suggests ways of integrating them in reading

lessons and touches on the issue of strategy instruction in lang-

uage learning. Before focusing on research findings, a brief

reference is made to the concepts of reading comprehension

skill and reading strategies, the theoretical and historical foun-

dations of GOs, and the types of GOs.

Theoretical Framework

Reading, a critical aspect of literacy, is regarded as an inter-

action between the reader and the text (Alderson & Urquhart,

1984). Moreover, reading is purposeful and requires active

involvement on behalf of the readers, as readers have specific

goals to achieve, when reading a text (Koda, 2005). Though

early attempts of reading instruction mainly emphasize on stu-

dents’ ability to decode and learn how to read, radically there is

a shift in the reading process putting the emphasis on compre-

hension and text learning. However, there are a number of stu-

dents who have difficulties in text comprehension and success-

ful task completion, especially when they encounter difficult

and long passages. Learners, particularly the struggling ones,

can be actively involved in reading and derive meaning from

written texts using reading comprehension strategies. Among

the various reading strategies, graphic strategies are considered

to approach reading differently from the traditional, linear text

presentation (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2002).

GOs have received great attention and concern among gen-

eral and special education researchers, as they depict a variety

of relationships and structures in a single display (Chmielewski

& Dansereau, 1998). Throughout the years a lot of researchers

have offered their own definitions. A simple and widespread

definition is that GOs are “visual representation of information

in the text” (Jiang & Grabe, 2007: p. 34). Katayama, Robinson,

Devaney, and Dubois (1997) consider GOs to be spatial dis-

plays of text information that can be given to students as study

aids to accompany texts and communicate both vertical, hier-

archical concept relations and horizontal, coordinate concept

relations. Moreover, Alvermann regards GOs as “a type of ad-

vance organizers that activates a reader’s prior knowledge and

depicts the organizational pattern of a reading selection by

schematically representing key vocabulary terms” (1981b: p. 4).

Having a closer look at the above definitions we can infer that

they have some things in common: 1) GOs consist of words; 2)

they indicate relations among concepts by using spatial ar-

rangements of the information in the text; 3) they depict the

organizational plan of the text (Stull & Mayer, 2007); and 4)

GOs can be deployed in different kinds of texts (both narrative

and expository texts). According to literature, a variety of terms

is used to refer to GOs, such as visualdisplays, graphic(al)

displays/representations, graphic s, tree diagrams, structured over-

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

views, network representations, adjunct displays/aids to name

some of the most common.

Origin of Graphic Organizers

GOs, originally called advance organizers and then struc-

tured overviews, were primarily initiated by Richard Barron

(Barron, 1969) but have their root in Ausubel’s work. Accor-

ding to Ausubel’s cognitive theory of meaningful verbal learn-

ing, the use of advance organizers enhances students’ learning

and retention of unfamiliar but meaningful materials (Ausubel,

1960). He assumed that the new information is acquired when it

is linked to the learners’ already existing cognitive structure

(1968). Therefore, the purpose of the organizer is to activate

students’ prior knowledge and relate the new material to the

previously stored information providing optimal anchorage and

rendering the new material more familiar and meaningful

(Ausubel, 1960), which is consistent with the schema theory

(Anderson & Pearson, 1984). According to the schema theory,

our mind is composed of cognitive structures (schemata) of

knowledge, known as prior or background knowledge, which

accept and assimilate the newly acquired information in order

to enhance learning and retention of information. One has

comprehended a text when s/he has found a “mental home” for

the information in the text or has altered an existing one in or-

der to accommodate the new knowledge (Anderson & Pearson,

1984). Researchers have relied on Ausubel’s advance organizer

concept to elaborate on the use of structured overviews or out-

lines as a strategy, which are used to enhance learners’ concep-

tual organization before reading the passage (Barron, 1969;

Earle & Barron, 1973; Estes, Mills, & Barron, 1969). These

early studies were the foundation for the use of structured over-

views with key vocabulary represented in a text to provide a

conceptual framework prior to text reading.

Types of Graphic Organizers

Throughout literature, there are several types of GOs that use

different conventions to communicate information and are cla-

ssified in various ways. Vekiri (2002) in her review verifies the

above statement, meaning that there is no consistency in the

classification system of GOs and, as a result, the same terms

may be used with different meanings from one study to another.

In this paper, an attempt is made to refer to the most widely

used GOs in literature. Although the various types of GOs are

used to foster learning from different kinds of texts, they differ

from each other in appearance and the types of relationships

displayed.

Story Maps

One type of GOs mainly used in narrative texts is the story

mapping. Story maps call students’ attention to the main ele-

ments of stories, such as characters, time, setting, plot (problem,

actions, outcomes) and visually represent key information in

narrative texts using a specific structure (Boulineau, Force,

Hagan-Burke, & Burke, 2004). At the same time, they highlight

significant relations within a story, which in turn leads to a

deeper understanding (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999). They can be

used before reading a passage to activate students’ prior

knowledge, link what they read to their background knowledge

structure, develop a purpose for their reading; while reading a

passage to guide them through texts, help them monitor com-

prehension and after reading a passage to facilitate summariza-

tion of the most important ideas (Boulineau et al., 2004; Davis,

1994; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999). Research supports that story

maps are a promising type of GOs, which can improve stu-

dents’ reading comprehension (Boulineau et al., 2004; Dimino,

Taylor, & Gersten, 1995; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Idol, 1987;

Idol & Croll, 1987; Singer & Donlan, 1983; Vallecorsa & de

Bettencourt, 1997) (Figure 1).

Therefore, story maps are used to facilitate comprehension of

narrative texts, whereas the other types of GOs are mainly used

to enhance comprehension of expository texts, which pose

more challenges to students, as they may contain unfamiliar

vocabulary, complex relations, and structures and are often

more information driven making the text dense in information

and weak in comprehensibility (Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei,

2004).

Matrix

Another type of GOs,which is mainly used in expository

texts, is matrix. Matrix was firstly investigated by Schwartz and

his colleagues (Schwartz & Fattaleh, 1972) and was later ad-

vanced by Kiewra and his colleagues (Kiewra, DuBois, Chris-

tian, & McShane, 1988; Kiewra et al., 1991). It is a kind of input

The Setting

Characters: Time: Place:

MY STORY MAP

NAME DATE

The Problem

The Goal

The Outcome

Action

Figure 1.

Story map (Idol, 1987).

Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 349

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

table, which confines the sum of the desired information within

its square (Graney, 1992; Kang, 2004). It is used to delineate

important categories or relationships and depict similarities and

disparities between two or more people, things, places or events

(Graney, 1992; Jones, Pierce, & Hunter, 1989). In order to de-

sign a matrix, learners need to identify which main aspects they

wish to focus on and what types of relationships they wish to

highlight (Graney, 1992). Matrix has the additional advantage

of presenting concept relations both hierarchically/vertically

and horizontically in a two-dimensional form facilitating the

extraction of information, as it is located closer together than in

texts (Kiewra, Kauffman, Robinson, Dubois, & Stanley, 1999;

Robinson & Skinner, 1996). Therefore, its main purpose is to

communicate comparisons among concepts and coordinate

concept relations (Robinson & Kiewra, 1995). Research has

shown consistent effects favoring the use of matrix to locate

relations and answers to questions and boost relational learning

(Kiewra et al., 1999; Robinson & Schraw, 1994; Robinson &

Skinner, 1996) (Figure 2).

Semantics Maps

Semantic maps are web-like organizers. Mind maps, spider

maps or sunbursts are some of the terms that are used to refer to

semantic maps. They look “like a sun or star with rays emanat-

ing from it, as they consist of a circle with lines radiating from

the circle” (Graney, 1992: p. 164). They are diagrams that can

be used to represent words, ideas, or other items linked to and

arranged around a central key word or idea of the text and de-

pict relationships of the different components of an idea to the

main idea, that is of the part to the whole (Graney, 1992; Iran-

mehr, 2011). Namely, semantic maps place the main idea in the

center around which relevant notions or sub-concepts are linked.

Concurrently, they offer an overview of key vocabulary and

concepts providing a link between what students know and

what will learn and read, a type of a brainstorming activity

mainly used before reading a passage to stimulate students’

background cognitive structure and assess their knowledge in

terms of the specific topic (Vaughn & Edmonds, 2006). The

development of semantic maps is based on the schema theory

(Anderson & Pearson, 1984).According to a research synthesis

conducted by Kim et al. (2004), the use of semantic organizers

enhances students’ comprehension skills (Figure 3).

Concept Maps

One kind of graphic device that can affect learners’ process-

ing of expository texts is the cognitive/conceptmap. The de-

velopment of concept maps is credited to Novak (Novak, 1990;

Novak, 1991; Novak & Musonda, 1991), who was based on

Ausubel’s (1968) assimilation theory of cognitive learning.

According to Novak and Cañas (2008),they include concepts,

usually enclosed in circles or boxes, and relationships between

concepts indicated by a connecting line linking two concepts,

while there are words on the line, referred to as linking words

or phrases, which specify the relationship between the two

concepts. Early maps did not include labels on the lines,

whereas later labels on the lines were regarded as necessary,

because even experts could see different meanings between the

same two concepts on a map (Novak et al., 1983). Another

characteristic of concept maps is that they indicate hierarchical

representation of concepts usually organized with the most

Name 1Name 3Name 2

Attribute 1

Attribute 3

Attribute 2

Figure 2.

Compare/contrast matrix (Kiewra et al., 1999).

Topic

Concept

Theme

Figure 3.

Semantic map (Graney, 1992).

general, most inclusive idea at the top of the map, with succes-

sively less general, less inclusive concepts in appropriate sub-

ordinate positions (Novak, 1990; Novak & Cañas, 2008). They

can also represent multiple relationship types among concepts

students would likely encounter in texts, such as comparative,

causative, explanatory, sequential facilitating reading compre-

hension (Oliver, 2009). As their primary function is to focus on

the selection of the main ideas (key words) of the text, con-

necting these concepts using relation links and displaying the

major framework of the text, concept maps are a useful tool to

represent knowledge in any discipline contributing to organiz-

ing, understanding and recalling new material (Chalarut & De-

Backer, 2004; Chang et al., 2002; Novak, 1990; Oliver, 2009;

Schmid & Telaro, 1990). A current trend in concept maps em-

phasizes on an electronic version (Canas et al., 2001; Novak &

Canas, 2008) (Figure 4).

Knowledge Maps

Another similar graphic organizer is the knowledgemap.

Knowledge mapping emerged from Dansereau’s work (Chmie-

lewski & Dansereau, 1998; Hall, Dansereau, & Scaggs, 1992;

McCagg & Dansereau, 1991). A knowledge map is a two-di-

mensional graphical display presenting information in the form

of node-link-node assemblies, which contains key ideas and

specifies the relationships between nodes (McCagg & Dan-

sereau, 1991). In addition, the nodes of a knowledge map depict

conceptual information in the form of simple, verbal proposi-

tions and each link simultaneously has an arrowhead to indicate

directionality (McCagg & Dansereau, 1991). Knowledge maps

also emphasize on the way concepts and ideas in a body of

information are related to an overall structure (Chmielewski &

Dansereau, 1998). Studying knowledge maps consistently leads

to better delayed recall of macro level ideas than merely study-

ing texts (Amer, 1994; Chmielewski & Dansereau, 1998;

McCagg & Dansereau, 1991). Conclusive results are provided

by a review, which indicates that students, especially the less

skilled ones, recall more central ideas, when they study a know-

ledge map (O’Donnell, Dansereau, & Hall, 2002). However, as

there is confusion in the classification of GOs throughout lite-

Copyright © 2012 SciR es .

350

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 351

Figure 4.

Concept map (Novak & Cañas, 2008).

Effectiveness of Graphi c Organizers: Research

Findings

rature, knowledge maps are often related to concept maps. It

should be pointed out that knowledge maps differ from other

similar representations, such as concept maps, in the deliberate

use of a set of labeled links that connect ideas and have arrow-

heads to establish directionality among ideas (O’Donnell et al.,

2002) (Figure 5).

The findings of studies concerning the effectiveness of GOs

on students’ comprehension and text learning are thoroughly

discussed in this section. Namely, first language (L1) and sec-

ond language (L2) studies yielding both consistent and incon-

sistent results in terms of the use of GOs in relation to text

learning are included. Research evidence coming from studies

conducted with students with Learning Disabilities (LD) is also

commented. Concurrently, ways of incorporating GOs in class-

rooms are recommended and further exploration of GOs is

suggested.

Tree Diagrams

Tree diagrams/tree structures/network trees, which belong to

hierarchical organizers, visually portray the main ideas of a text

and establish the multiple relations among the different ele-

ments that exist in a passage, such as general to specific or

specific to general through hierarchically describing the rela-

tionships of the different elements of the text (Graney, 1992).

Namely, tree diagrams communicate super ordinate-subordinate

or hierarchical concept relations, which is the defining feature

of a hierarchy (Robinson & Kiewra, 1995; Robinson & Skinner,

1996). More often than not, they are used to describe family

trees, the construction of a sentence, the structure of societies,

classes, institutions, taxonomies, and various hierarchical mod-

els (Guri-Rozenblit, 1989). Research supports the implementa-

tion of tree diagrams to boost comprehension and recall of main

ideas (Guri-Rozenblit, 1989) (Figure 6).

Consistent Findings in First Language Graphic

Organizer Research

Researchers have attempted to enhance learners’ comprehen-

sion skills of both narrative and expository texts through the

use of GOs, which visually represent the main ideas or structure

of texts. The experimental studies of GOs advocate their use

and most of them include at least an experimental/intervention

(GO) and a control group as well as a pre and post testing de-

sign. To begin with, several studies in L1 demonstrate that em-

phasis on GO training is inextricably linked with improvement

in comprehension skills, as they help students identify, organize

and recall the main ideas of a text (Alvermann & Boothby,

1986; Armbruste r, Anderson, & Oste rtag, 1987; Berkowitz, 1986 ;

Chang et al., 2002; Chmielewski & Dansereau, 1998; Geva,

1983; Guri & Rozenblit, 1989; Horton, Lovitt, & Bergerud,

1990; Idol, 1987; Kiewra et al., 1999; Oliver, 2009; Robinson

et al., 2006). Ro binson and Skinner (1996), in particular, demon-

Venn Diagrams

The Venn diagram belongs to linear organizers. It is com-

posed of two or more overlapping circles used as a framework

to make comparisons between two or more concepts (Kang,

2004). It is named after John Venn (Venn, 1880), who used it in

maths (Figure 7).

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

Learning Tools

In flu e nce s

Economics

Learning

Context ExampleExample

Science

Museum Classroom

Part

Part

Part

Proc esse s

Participants

Type

Prior K nowledge

Activation

TypeType

Computers Exhibits

Next

New Mate r ia l i s

Taugh t

Type

Type

Type

Students Teachers

Curators

Analogy

Figure 5.

Knowledge map (O’D on n el l et a l., 2002).

Figure 6.

Tree diagram (Jones et al ., 1989).

Figure 7.

Venn diagram (Venn, 1880).

strate that GOs facilitate students’ skill inlocating specific

information quickly in order to answer comprehension ques-

tions, while Robinson and Kiewra (1995) highlight that, when

learners study GOs, they can learn hierarchical and coordinate

relations thus becoming more successful in integrating this

knowledge into writing. Concurrently, a large body of research

on the use of GOs in the reading process focuses on their func-

tion as a visual map of the actual text structure (e.g., compare/

contrast, problem/solution, cause/effect, description). Namely,

research supports that GOs raise students’ awareness of the

various text structures and facilitate the identification of this

higher level organization, a critical factor in comprehension

(Alvermann, 1981, Alvermann & Boothby, 1986; Armbruster,

Anderson, & Meyer, 1991; Armbruster et al., 1987; Berkowitz,

1986; Geva, 1983; Guri-Rozenblit, 1989; Oliver, 2009). Fur-

thermore, research indicates that GOs training enhances learn-

ers’ summarization abilities (Armbruster et al., 1987; Chang et

al., 2002). Throughout literature, it is also evident that poor or

low ability students are those who benefit most from GOs

training (Balajthy & Weisberg, 1990; Geva, 1983; O’Donnell et

al., 2002; Schmid & Telaro, 1990).

At the same time, in a meta-analysis carried out by Moore

and Readence (1984) learners treated with GOs outperformed

learners in control groups ascertaining that GOs produce a

small but positive effect on text learning. In addition, Vekiri

(2002) and O’Donnell et al. (2002) in their reviews provide

supportive results regarding the use of GOs as scaffolds for

concept relation, text learning and central ideas recalling re-

spectively. In more recent reviews, Nesbit and Adesope (2006)

focusing on concept and knowledge maps conclude that the

specific types of maps are more effective for retaining knowl-

edge than reading texts or attending lectures, while Jiang and

Grabe (2007) provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of

GOs representing the discourse structures of texts on the im-

Copyright © 2012 SciR es .

352

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

provement in comprehension of reading materials.

Allowing for the visual nature of GOs and the reduction of

linguistic load and task complexity that GOs offer, a large body

of research on GOs focuses on LD students, who have difficul-

ties in deriving meaning from written texts. Overall, research

suggests that GOs can mainly help students with LD or low

ability students comprehend and recall important information in

a text, something which holds true for the various learning

strategies (Boulineau et al., 2004; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Idol,

1987; Idol & Croll, 1987; Horton et al., 1990; Vallecorsa & de

Bettencourt, 1997). Concurrently, Kim et al., (2004) and Gajria,

Jitendra, Sood, and Sacks (2007) lend support for the effec-

tiveness of GOs on boosting comprehension skills. The findings

of a more recent meta-analytic review conducted by Dexter,

Park, and Hughes (2011) also corroborate the facilitative effects

of GOs on increased vocabulary knowledge and comprehension

gains.

Inconsistent Findings in First Language Graphic

Organizer Research

Notwithstanding the supportive findings of a large body of

literature, there are some studies that yield conflicting results

regarding the use of GOs. Namely, Alvermann (1981) did not

manage to fully support the effectiveness of GOs on reading

comprehension; Bean, Singer, Sorter, and Frazee (1986) and

Simmons et al. (1988) consider GO training to b e no more effec-

tive than outlining or traditional instruction for increasing stu-

dents’ comprehension and retention of text information. More-

over, Balajthy & Weisberg (1990) fail to provide a statistically

significant improvement in passage comprehension or summa-

rization scores highlighting that GO training mostly favors

lower ability groups. At the same time, Armbruster et al. (1991)

and Davis (1994) provide inconclusive results concerning the

effectiveness of GOs on text comprehension, as they found

positive effects of GOs on text comprehension in one grade but

no statistically meaningful difference in the other grade empha-

sized in their studies. Non-supportive results were also provi-

ded by Griffin, Malone, and Kameenui (1995). Concurrently,

Rice (1994) and Griffin and Tulbert (1995) in their review

found inconsistency in the research findings of GOs studies

questioning the facilitative effects of GOs on text comprehend-

sion.

In terms of studies focusing on students with LD, Griffin,

Simmons, and Kameenui (1991) as well as DiCecco and Glea-

son (2002) failed to provide consistent findings regarding the

effectiveness of GOs on students’ comprehension. Despite the

non-supportive results of some studies, almost all researchers

support that learners benefit from the implementation of GOs in

classrooms in one way or another (e.g., Armbruster et al., 1991;

Balajthy & Weisberg, 1990).

Taking all the above into account, we can draw the conclu-

sion that, though some studies failed to yield positive results

regarding the effectiveness of GOs, they constitute an instruc-

tional strategy used to assist students in learning from both

informational and narrative texts. However, based on the in-

formation derived from previous research (Jiang & Grabe,

2007), one critical factor that can affect the findings of the

various studies is the length of training period. In other words,

researchers assert that the length of instruction can be a signifi-

cant variable in classroom studies in order to achieve strategy

mastery accentuating the need for longer interventions (Al-

vermann, 1981; Alvermann & Boothby, 1986; Bean et al., 1986;

Griffin et al., 1995; Schmid & Telaro, 1990).

Second Language Graphic Organizer Research

Although there is evidence that a specific type of GOs, con-

cept maps, is a useful strategy for English as a Second Lan-

guage (ESL) students (Block, 1986; Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto,

1989; Koumy & Salam, 1999), few studies investigated the

effectiveness of GOs on L2 reading comprehension. To be

more precise, Tang (1992), who examined the relation of gra-

phic representation of text structure to comprehension with ESL

students, indicated great gains in the amount of information

recalled. Furthermore, Amer (1994) probing into the effect of

deploying knowledge maps and underlining on students’ com-

prehension of English scientific texts found that both experi-

mental groups outperformed the control group on summariza-

tion, while the knowledge map group performed slightly better.

Another study (Koumy & Salam, 1999) focusing on the effects

of three semantic mapping strategies (teacher-initiated, student

mediated, teacher-student interactive mapping) on comprehen-

sion of ESL students revealed that learners in the teacher-stu-

dent interactive mapping group scored significantly higher than

the other two groups. Additionally, Chularut and DeBacker

(2004) demonstrated facilitative effects of the use of GOs on

ESL students’ text learning, self-efficacy and self-monitoring;

Suzuki, Sato, and Awazu (2008) exploring the advantage of the

spatial graphic representation of an English sentence over a

linear sentential representation supported that the spatial

graphic display enhanced ESL readers’ comprehension of sen-

tences more than the sentential display did.

Ways of Using Graphic

Organizers-Instructional Implications

Based on research (Jiang & Grabe, 2007), GOs can be used

in education in different ways in all reading stages producing

different effects on comprehension. The instructional proce-

dures vary depending on the position of GOs in relation to

reading (pre-reading, post reading stage) and the constructor of

GOs (teacher-constructed, student-constructed, teacher/student

constructed). Namely, GOs are used in the pre-reading stage

usually as a brainstorming activity to generate ideas, activate

learners’ prior knowledge, connect what the students know with

new information and provide a purpose for reading. Davis

(1994) and Simmons et al. (1988), who focused on a pre-read-

ing GO, provide facilitative effects of the use of GOs prior to

text reading on students’ comprehension. However, the instruc-

tional position of GOs shifted from the pre-reading to the post-

reading position (Rice, 1994). As for the post-reading stage,

GOs are used in order to assess the degree of students’ under-

standing and enhance recall, retention and summarization of

main ideas, which can often function as a plan leading to writ-

ing tasks. In fact, research demonstrates that GOs are more

effective, when used in the post-reading than in the pre-reading

stage (Griffin & Tulbert, 1995; Moore & Readence, 1984).

Additionally, the constructor of GOs exerts influence on

comprehension (Jiang & Grabe, 2007), as GOs can be student,

author or teacher created and teacher/student created with the

goal of assisting students in learning from texts. To put it dif-

ferently, some researchers report that teacher-initiated GOs

result in improved reading comprehension (Alvermann, 1981;

Idol, 1987). Another body of research yields positive results

Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 353

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

regarding GOs generated or even simply partia lly comple ted by

students emphasizing on students’ active involvement in the

le arning process (Berkowitz, 19 86; McCagg & Dansereau, 1991).

Concurrently, other studies have shown that the map construc-

tion group did not fare better than the control group (Chang et

al., 2002; Stull & Mayer, 2007) attributing this result to the

cognitive load theory, according to which a heavy extraneous

cognitive load that the instructional procedures often imposed is

to blame for interfering with learning (Stull & Mayer, 2007;

Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998). A third group of re-

searchers, support the effectiveness of teacher-student con-

structed GOs on text learning (Koumy & Salam, 1999).

Although the majority of studies throughout literature in-

clude GOs presented on paper, there is a new trend focusing on

an electronic version of GOs, in particular concept maps (Canas

et al., 2001; Novak & Canas, 2008). A few researchers have

trained students in using concept map software (Cmap Tools)

and have provided positive effects favoring computer-based

maps in their studies (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2001; DeSimone,

Schmid, & McEwen, 2001; Oliver, 2009). In this way, the

strength of concept maps co-exists with technology familiari-

zing students with the new technological achievements, the

internet and the World Wide Web.

Based on research, teachers should adopt the use of GOs as a

reading strategy in the teaching and learning of languages in

order to help students enhance text comprehension. Namely,

teachers should familiarize learners with GO studying and aim

at training them in constructing GOs and independently imple-

menting them in and out of classrooms; they should model how

to construct GOs, explain when and why students should use

GOs, provide students with opportunities to guided practice and

feedback, gradually shifting responsibility from teacher to stu-

dents, until students become proficient at using this strategy in

independent learning settings. At the heart of this recommenda-

tion lies the concept of strategic approach to reading, which

focuses on autonomous learners, able to use strategies during

their independent study (Cohen, 2007; Palincsar & Brown,

1984; Pressley, El-Dinary, Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman, Almasi,

& Brown, 1992).

Room for Research

According to literature, a body of research has yielded con-

flicting results regarding the effectiveness of GOs on learners’

retention and comprehension of text information (Alvermann,

1981; Armbruster et al., 1991; Balajthy & Weisberg, 1990;

Griffin et al., 1991; Griffin et al., 1995; Griffin & Tulbert, 1995;

Simmons et al., 1988). Allowing for the above non-supportive

findings of studies, room for research is left in further exploring

the effectiveness of GOs as a reading strategy, especially in the

language teaching courses. Jiang and Grabe (2007) strongly

support that instead of being discouraged and frustrated in the

inconsistency of the above findings, it is important to view the

issue from a different perspective and start further exploring the

specific area. Furthermore, research that involves longer inter-

vention is required, as most studies spend a few hours or a cou-

ple of days on GO training, because students need extended

instructional time to be exposed to practice in GOs in order to

achieve strategy mastery and be able to use them independently

in new learning situations, which is in accordance with previous

research findings (Alvermann, 1981; Alvermann & Boothby,

1986; Bean et al., 1986; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Jiang &

Grabe, 2007; Kim et al., 2004; Moore & Readence, 1984; Sch-

mid & Telaro, 1990). Future research should also assess long-

term retention, maintenance and transfer of training effects of

GOs on comprehension skills allowing a month or more to pass,

since maintenance is the most desired outcome of strategy

training. In fact, the majority of studies investigate immediate

influence of GOs on text learning including only a posttest,

while lacking a follow-up study and saying little about what

happens afterwards, which concurs with previous literature

(Chang et al., 2002; Moore & Readence, 1984). At the same

time, further exploration is needed at middle or secondary

grades, as most of the studies conducted in this area focus on

elementary (e.g., Alvermann & Boothby, 1986; Armbruster et

al., 1991; Armbruster et al., 1987; Berkowitz, 1986; Chang,

2002; Davis, 1994; Griffin et al., 1995; Oliver, 2009; Simmons

et al., 1988) or college students (e.g., Balajthy & Weisberg,

1990; Chmielewski & Dansereau, 1998; Geva, 1983; Guri &

Rozenblit, 1989; Katayama et al., 1997; Kiewra et al., 1999;

Robinson & Katayama, 2006; Robinson & Kiewra, 1995; Rob-

inson & Skinner, 1996). Last but not least, based on research on

GOs, there is an obvious dearth of GO studies in second or

foreign languages, as most of GO studies focus on first or na-

tive language learners, which is consistent with previous find-

ings (Jiang & Grabe, 2007; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006).

By and large, further GO investigation is needed to define

the impact of the different types of GOs on students’ compre-

hension or summarization skills, especially in the field of

teaching and learning of foreign languages, comparing GOs

interventions with traditional instruction in reading comprehen-

sion or with other comprehension strategies (DiCecco & Glea-

son, 2002; Iranmehr, 2011; Kim et al., 2004). Although signifi-

cant progress has been made in examining how to design and

implement visual aids in classrooms, our understanding of this

issue is still under development (Vekiri, 2002).

Some Final Thoughts on Graphic Organizers

In a nutshell, according to literature review, GOs have been

successfully deployed with students with or without learning

disabilities before, during and after reading texts. As visual

scaffolds, they are conducive on assisting students in activating

prior knowledge, gaining an insight into text structure, identi-

fying as well as connecting the main ideas of a text resulting

thus in better recall and retention of information. Allowing for

the benefits of GOs, teachers should implement this strategy in

classrooms and train students in using it helping them become

independent and self-regulated learners, especially after long-

term interventions. However, the above findings should be in-

terpreted with some caution, as some studies have yielded in-

consistent results regarding the use of GOs, which requires

further research, particularly on L2 classrooms.

Acknowledgements

This study consists part of a broa der research on the contribu-

ti on of strategy instr uction to the improve ment in elementary stu-

dents’ reading comprehension, which is co-financed by the Eu-

ropean Union (Europea n Social Fund —ESF) and the Gree k natio-

nal funds through the Operational Prog ram “Education and Life-

long Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework

(NSRF)-Research Funding Program: HERACLEITUS II. Inves-

ting in knowledge society through the European Social Fund.

Copyright © 2012 SciR es .

354

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

REFERENCES

Alderson, C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1984). Introduction: What is reading?

In C. Alderson, & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign lan-

guage (pp. 16-28). London & New York: Longman.

Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organiz-

ers on text structure. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED. 208

019.

Alvermann, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986). Children’s transfer of gra-

phic organizer in struction. Reading Psychology, 7, 87-100.

doi:10.1080/0270271860070203

Amer, A. A. (1994). The effect of knowledge map and underlining trai-

ning on the reading comprehension of scientific texts. English Spe-

cific Purposes, 13, 35-45. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90023-X

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of

basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),

Handbook of reading r e se a rc h (pp. 255-291). New Yor k: Longman.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Meyer, J. L. (1991). Improving

content-area reading using instructional graphics. Reading Research

Quarterly,26, 393-416. doi:10.2307/747895

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text struc-

ture/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository

text? Reading Resear ch Quarterly,22, 331- 346. doi:10.2307/747972

Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and

retention of meaningful material. Journal of Educa t i o n al Psychology,

51, 267-272.doi:10.1037/h0046669

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New

York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Balajthy, E., & Weisberg, R. (1990). Effects of reading ability, prior

knowledge, topic interest, and locus of control on at-risk college stu-

dents’ use of graphic organizers and summarizing. ERIC Document

Reproduction Service, ED. 325838.

Barron, R. (1969). The use of vocabulary as an advance organizer. In H.

L. Herber, & P. L. Sanders (Eds.), Research in reading in content

areas: First year report (pp. 29-39). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Uni-

versity, Reading and Language Arts Center.

Bean, T. W., Singer, H., Sorter, J., & Frazee, C. (1986). The effect of

metacognitive instruction in outlining and graphic organizer cons-

truction on students’ comprehension in a tenth-grade world history

class. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 153-169.

Berkowitz, S. J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on

sixth-grade students’ memory for expository reading. Reading Re-

search Quarterly, 21, 161-178. doi:10.2307/747843

Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language

readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494. doi:10.2307/3586295

Boulineau, T., Force, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use

of story-mapping to increase the story grammar text comprehension

of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability

Quarterly,27, 105-121. doi:10.2307/1593645

Cañas, A. J., Ford, K. M., Novak, J. D., Hayes, P., Reichherzer, T., &

Suri, N. (2001). Online concept maps: Enhancing collaborative lear-

ning by using technology with concept maps. The Science Teacher,

68, 49-51.

Carrell, P., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strate-

gy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647 -673.

doi:10.2307/3587536

Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept map-

ping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of

English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychol-

ogy, 29, 248-263. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.001

Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001) Learning through com-

puter-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Com-

puter Assistance Learning, 17, 21-33 .

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x

Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept

mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal

of Experimental Education, 71, 5-23.

doi:10.1080/00220970209602054

Chmielewski, T., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of

text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology,90, 407-413.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.407

Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies:

Surveying the experts. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Langua-

ge learning strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp.

29-45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davis, Z. T. (1994). Effects of prereading story mapping on elementary

readers’ comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 353-

360.doi:10.1080/00220671.1994.9941266

DeSimone, C., Schmid, R. F., & McEwen, L. A. (2001) Supporting the

learning process with collaborative concept mapping using com-

puter-based communication tools and processes. Education Research

Evaluation, 7, 263 -283. doi:10.1076/edre.7.2.263.3870

Dexter, D. D., Park, Y. J., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). A meta-analytic re-

view of graphic organizers and science instruction for adolescents

with learning disabilities: Implications for the intermediate and sec-

ondary science classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Prac-

tice, 26, 204-213. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00341.x

DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to

attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 35, 306-320.doi:10.1177/00222194020350040201

Dimino, J. A., Taylor, R. M., & Gersten, R. M. (1995). Synthesis of the

research on story-grammar as a means to increase comprehension.

Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11,

53-72.

Earle, R. A., & Barron, R. (1973). An approach for teaching vocabulary

in content subjects. In H. L. Herber, & R. F. Barron (Eds.), Research

in reading in content areas: Second year report (pp. 84-100). Syra-

cuse, NY: Syracuse University, Reading and Language Arts Center.

Estes, T. H., Mills, D. C., & Barron, R. F. (1969). Two methods of in-

troducing students to a reading-learning task in two content subjects.

In H. L. Herber, & P. L. Sanders (Eds.), Research in reading in con-

tent areas: First year report (pp. 40-48). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse

University, Reading and Language Arts Cent e r,.

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving com-

prehension of expository text in students with LD: A research syn-

thesis. Journal of Learni ng Disabilities, 40, 210-225.

doi:10.1177/00222194070400030301

Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, K. A. (1999). Advanced story map instruc-

tion: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning

disabilities. J o u r n al of Special Education, 33, 2-17.

doi:10.1177/002246699903300101

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001).Teaching

reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabili-

ties: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-

320.doi:10.3102/00346543071002279

Geva, E. (1983). Facilitating reading comprehension through flowchar-

ting. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 384-405.doi:10.2307/747375

Graney, M. J. (1992). A framework for using text graphing. System,20,

161-167. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(92)90022-U

Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of gra-

phic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal of Educa-

tional Research, 89, 98-107. doi:10.1080/00220671.1995.9941200

Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Investigating

the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the compre-

hension and recall of science content by students with learning dis-

abilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly,7, 355-376.

Griffin, C. C., & Tulbert, B. L. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers

on students’ comprehension and recall of expository text: A review

of the research and implications for practice. Reading and Writing

Quarterly, 11, 73- 89. doi:10.1080/1057356950110106

Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1989). Effects of a tree diagram on students’ com-

prehension of main ideas in an expository text with multiple themes.

Reading Research Quarterly,24, 236 -247. doi:10.2307/747866

Hall, R. H., Dansereau, D. E., & Skaggs, L. P. (1992). Knowledge maps

and the presentation of related information domains. Journal of Ex-

perimental Education, 61, 5-18. doi:10.1080/00220973.1992.9943845

Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role

of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews and advance organizers.

Review of Educational Research,46, 239- 265.

doi:10.3102/00346543046002239

Horton, S. C., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness

Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 355

P. MANOLI, M. PAPADOPOULOU

Copyright © 2012 SciRe s .

356

of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students

in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12-29.

doi:10.1177/002221949002300107

Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for

both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

20, 196-205. doi:10.1177/002221948702000401

Idol, L., & Croll, V. (1987). Story mapping training as a means of im-

proving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 109,

214-230. doi:10.2307/1510494

Iranmehr, A., Davari, H., & Erfanie, S. M. (2011). The application of

organizers as an efficient technique in ESP textbooks development.

Theory and Practice in Lan g ua g e S tudies,1, 417- 422.

doi:10.4304/tpls.1.4.417-422

Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruct-

tion: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language,

19, 34-55.

Jones, B., Pierce, J., & Hunter, B. (1989). Teaching children to con-

struct graphic representations. Educational Leadership, 46, 20-25.

Kang, S. (2004). Using visual organizers to enhance EFL instruction.

JALT Journal,58, 58-67.

Kat ayama, A. D., Robinson, D. H., Devaney, T., & Dubois, N. F. (1997).

The interaction of study materials and spaced review on transfer and

relational learning. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED. 411

280.

Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., & McShane, A. (1988).

Providing study notes: A comparison of three types of notes for re-

view. Journal of Educational Psychology,80, 595-597.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.595

Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhof fer,

M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note taking functions and techniques.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240

Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D. H., Dubois, N. F., &

Stanley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct

displays. Instructional Science, 27, 373-401.

doi:10.1023/A:1003270723360

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, 105-

118.doi:10.1177/00222194040370020201

Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-ling-

uistic approach. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koumy, E., & Salam, A. (1999). Effects of three semantic mapping

strategies on EFL students reading comprehension. ERIC Document

Reproduction Service, ED. 435193.

McCagg, E. C., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). A convergent paradigm for

examining knowledge mapping as a learning and recall strategy.

Journal of Educational Research,84, 317-324.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1991.9941812

Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative

review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Re-

search,78, 11-17.

Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and know-

ledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76,

413-448. doi:10.3102/00346543076003413

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science edu-

cation. Journal o f Research in Science Teach i ng, 27, 937-949.

doi:10.1002/tea.3660271003

Novak, J. D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps: A tool for students and

teachers alike. Science Teacher, 58, 45-49.

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept

maps and how to construct and use them. URL (Last checked 13

December 2011).

http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlying

ConceptMaps.pdf

Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D.(1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study

of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal,

28, 117-153. doi:10.3102/00028312028001117

O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge

maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology

Review, 14, 71-86. doi:10.1023/A:1013132527007

Oliver, K. (2009). An investigation of concept mapping to improve the

reading comprehension of science texts. Journal of Science Educa-

tion and Technology, 18, 402-414. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9157-3

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of com-

prehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cog-

nition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L.,

Almasi, J., & Brown, B. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Tran-

sactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elemen-

tary School Journal, 92, 513-555. doi:10.1086/461705

Rice, G. E. (1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research.

Reading Psychology,15, 39-67.doi:10.1080/0270271940150103

Ro binson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Hsieh, Y., & Van-

derveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note

taking using a partial graphic organizer. Journal of Educational Re-

search,100, 103-111. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.2.103-111

Rob inson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic or-

ganizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455-467.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.455

Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency

through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate rela-

tions in text too effectively. Contemporary Educational Psychology,

19, 399-415. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1029

Robinson, D. H., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Why graphic organizers

facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computationally effective

indexing? Con temporary Educational Psychology,21, 161-180.

doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0014

Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instruc-

tional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Re-

search,84, 78-85.

Schwartz, S. H., & Fattaleh, D. L. (1972). Representation in deductive

problem solving: The matrix. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

95, 343-348. doi:10.1037/h0033669

Simmons, D. C., Griffin, C. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1988). Effects of

teacher-constructed pre- and post-graphic organizer instruction on

sixth-grade science students’ comprehension and recall. Journalof

Educational Research,82, 15-21.

Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1983). Active comprehension: Problem-sol-

ving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex

short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 166-185.

doi:10.2307/747482

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, 808-820. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808

Suzuki, A., Sato, T., & Awazu, S. (2008). Graphic display of linguistic

information in English as a Foreign Language reading. TESOL Quar-

terly,42, 591-616.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cog-

nitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology

Review,10, 251-296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205

Tan g, G. (1992). The effect of graphic repres entation of k nowledge struc-

tures on ESL reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition,14, 177-195.doi:10.1017/S0272263100010810

Vallecorsa, A. L., & de Bettencourt, L. U. (1997 ). Using a mapping pro-

cedure to teach reading and writing to middle grade students with

learning disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 20, 173-189.

Vaughn, S., & Edmonds, M. (2006). Reading comprehension for older

readers. Intervention in School an d Clinic, 41, 131- 137.

doi:10.1177/10534512060410030101

Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning?

Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261-312.

doi:10.1023/A:1016064429161

Venn, J. (1880). On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of

propositions and reasonings. Dublin Pholosophical Magazine and

Journal of Science, 9, 1-18.

Why are graphic organizers important for reading?

What is the benefit of using graphic organizers with students?

How does the use of graphic organizer help students enhance their memory?

What is the use of graphic organizers in reading and writing a text?