Learning Tools and Graphic Organisers: The Complete Guide

A graphic organiser is a visual framework that structures information using boxes, arrows, circles, or other spatial arrangements to show the relationships between ideas. They work because they reduce the cognitive load of managing information in working memory alone: the page does some of the holding and organising, freeing mental resources for thinking. Ausubel (1968) showed that learners need to connect new knowledge to existing schemas; a well-designed organiser provides visible scaffolding for that connection. Hattie (2009) reports an effect size of 0.57 for graphic organisers, placing them firmly in the zone of worthwhile classroom interventions.

Both tools externalise thinking, but they serve different purposes. A mind map radiates outward from a central topic using branches and sub-branches, making it excellent for brainstorming and exploring a topic broadly. It does not require pupils to articulate the relationship between ideas. A concept map, developed by Novak and Gowin (1984), uses labelled linking phrases on connecting lines to show propositional relationships: "photosynthesis requires sunlight because...". This is harder to construct but far more informative as an assessment tool, because the linking phrases reveal exactly what the pupil understands or misunderstands about how ideas relate. For diagnostic purposes, concept maps are substantially more powerful.

SOLO stands for Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes. Biggs and Collis (1982) identified five levels: prestructural (no relevant understanding), unistructural (one relevant idea), multistructural (several ideas, not connected), relational (ideas connected coherently), and extended abstract (generalised beyond the original context). Teachers use SOLO in two main ways. First, as a task-design tool: writing tasks at all five levels for a given concept ensures pupils at different points of understanding have an appropriate challenge. Second, as a feedback framework: telling a pupil their response is "multistructural" and explaining what a relational response would look like is more precise and more useful than simply saying "go deeper".

The Thinking Framework identifies eight cognitive operations that underpin all disciplinary thinking: describing, analysing, classifying, evaluating, connecting, speculating, reasoning, and applying. Unlike Bloom's taxonomy, which describes levels of cognitive demand, the Thinking Framework describes cognitive operations that can be applied at any level of complexity. A Year 2 pupil and a Year 10 pupil both classify; what differs is the sophistication of the categories and the rigour of the criteria. The Framework gives schools a shared vocabulary for thinking that travels across subjects and key stages, enabling departments to design tasks that explicitly target specific cognitive operations rather than assuming they emerge spontaneously from subject content.

Writing frames work by making the structural conventions of a genre explicit and reducing the cognitive load of managing both content and form simultaneously. The risk of dependency arises when frames are used indefinitely without a plan to remove them. The solution is deliberate fading. Begin with a fully scaffolded frame that includes sentence starters and structural cues. Next, provide a frame with structural markers but no sentence starters. Then provide a planning frame only, with no linguistic support. Finally, remove the frame entirely. Discuss with pupils the purpose of each stage so they understand what they are internalising, not just completing. Research on scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, and Ross, 1976) is clear: the goal of the scaffold is always its own removal.

Yes, and the evidence is particularly strong for pupils with learning difficulties, dyslexia, and attention difficulties. Graphic organisers reduce the demands on working memory by externalising the task structure, which is especially valuable for pupils whose working memory resources are stretched. For pupils with dyslexia, visual organisation can bypass the phonological processing demands of linear text. The EEF's SEND guidance (2020) recommends visual scaffolds as a high-value, low-cost strategy across all phases. That said, the same principle of fading applies: the goal is for pupils to internalise the organisational thinking, not to remain permanently dependent on a template.

Dual coding, based on Paivio's (1971) theory and extended by Mayer (2009), holds that memory is stronger when information is encoded in both verbal and visual channels simultaneously. Visual learning tools exploit this directly: when a pupil completes a graphic organiser, they are combining verbal labels and propositions with a spatial, visual structure, creating two memory traces rather than one. The key implication is that the visual and verbal elements must complement each other, not duplicate. A diagram that simply illustrates what the text already says offers little benefit; a diagram that adds structural or relational information that the text cannot easily convey is genuinely supporting dual coding and deepening retention.