The Impact of Graphic Organizer in Constructivist Learning: A Systematic Review for Developing a Teaching Primer

Despite the recognized importance of concept acquisition in elementary education, many learners continue to struggle with abstract concepts due to the persistent use of rote memorization and the limited integration of visual learning strategies. This gap highlights the need for more effective instructional tools to support meaningful and active learning.
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of graphic organizers in enhancing conceptual understanding among elementary learners and to identify trends in their pedagogical application, particularly within the context of local and international educational settings relevant to the Philippine basic education system.
Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic review of 23 studies published between 2020 and 2025 was conducted. Data were collected from various academic databases and analyzed using thematic synthesis and “cool and warm” analysis to examine the impact of both print and digital graphic organizers. Results revealed that graphic organizers significantly improve student performance across core subjects such as Science, Mathematics, and Language. Specifically, 69.5% of the studies supported the effectiveness of print-based tools, while 30.4% highlighted the growing impact of digital graphic organizers. These tools were found to reduce cognitive load and enhance both individual understanding and collaborative learning.
The study concludes that graphic organizers are essential tools for promoting higher-order thinking skills in 21st-century classrooms. However, gaps in teacher training and access to digital resources remain. It is recommended that schools integrate graphic organizers into the MATATAG curriculum and utilize the proposed Teaching Primer to guide educators in effectively implementing visual-spatial strategies.

Concept Acquisition, Constructivism, Elementary Education

1. Abduganiyeva, J. (2025). The role of graphic organizers in enhancing student engagement. Journal of Educational Scaffolding. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ajaka, H., & Al Chami, M. (2023). Computer-based organizers for visualizing relationships in the digital era. Modern Learning Technologies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ali, M., & Rajkumar, S. (2021). Concept mapping and KWL strategy to improve science learning outcomes in elementary schools. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 11(3), 41–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alswailah, S. S. (2023). Understanding and exploring the use of graphic organizers by teachers to support ELLs in elementary school (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Chicago). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Alzahrani, M. K. (2021). The effectiveness of using graphic organizers in teaching science in elementary schools: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 151–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Aranges, J., et al. (2025). Four-square organizers and cognitive support in Grade 3 science. Elementary Science Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Banos, R. M., & Martinez, S. (2023). Effect of visual mapping strategies on comprehension among primary students in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 190, 104597. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Barwasser, A., et al. (2025). The effects of a graphic organizer with storytelling intervention on writing quality. European Journal of Psychology of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Beyhatın, S., & Özdemir, M. (2023). Story maps and structural logic in elementary literacy. Literacy Research Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T. M., et al. (2024). Effects of text structure instruction on reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bruner, J. S. (2020). The process of education. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bruner, J. S. (2021). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bunnao, R. (2025). Short-term instructional effects of organizers on student achievement. Philippine Education Quarterly. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Caldwell, K. (2020). Integrating technology-based organizers into the English language arts curriculum. Digital Literacy Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Campoverde, L., & López, M. (2022). Digital concept maps and schema integration in Grade 6. Global Teaching Perspectives. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Castillo, R. (2024). Teacher training and the availability of instructional support for visual tools. Local Pedagogical Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Castro, L. A., & de Guzman, M. E. (2022). KWL charts and thinking maps in Filipino elementary classrooms: An action research. Philippine Journal of Education, 101(3), 15–26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Choi, S. E. (2021). Applying constructivism in neurodiverse classrooms. The International Young Researchers’ Conference. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Davies, M. (2021). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(2), 279–301. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Davies, M. (2021). Systemic inertia and the cultural lag in visual learning. Educational Leadership and Policy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. De Paz, J. (2023). Reducing frustration for struggling readers through visual scaffolding. Independent Reading Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. DepEd. (2023). MATATAG Curriculum: Instructional guidelines for elementary education. Department of Education, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Diaz, F., & Villamor, G. (2020). Improved conceptual understanding among Grade 6 students using graphic organizers. Journal of Philippine Social Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Esguerra, M. (2025). Multimedia equipment and digital story maps in elementary literacy. Tech-Integrated Teaching. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Estacio, R. D., Reyes, E. A. S., & Torrefranca, E. R. (2022). Graphic organizers and the level of students' performance and self-efficacy in an online learning environment. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Fabros, B. G., & Ibañez, E. D. (2023). Effectiveness of utilizing graphic organizers in improving conceptual understanding towards operations of fractions among teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 507–526. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Fernández-Fernández, M. Á., & Fonseca-Mora, M. C. (2022). Graphic organizers: Mind maps as a tool to enhance reading comprehension skills. Linguo Didáctica, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ferrer, A., & Naanep, L. (2025). Addressing socioeconomic disparities and classroom management in scaffolded tasks. Inclusive Education Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Fitria, Y., Alwi, N. A., Eliasni, R., Chandra, C., & Kharisma, A. (2023). Graphic organizer-based science literacy learning models in elementary schools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 12(1), 123–134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Garcia, C. V. (2024). Effectiveness of games and graphic organizers in improving the performance of Grade 4 learners in mathematics. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies, 4(7), 69–76. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. García-Sánchez, J.-N., & Fidalgo, R. (2020). Using graphic organizers to support reading comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 843–860. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Gibbs, G. (2020). Vocabulary tracking and student self-efficacy in home-based learning. Home and School Connection Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Gough, D. (2020). Guidelines for systematic reviews in education. Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Centre. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Gunawan, I., et al. (2020). Anchoring new information in familiar mental frameworks. Asian Journal of Cognitive Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Guo, Y., et al. (2024). Mind mapping to enhance self-efficacy in graphical programming. Computer Science Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Gürgil, F. (2020). Effect of graphic organizer use in social studies on students' academic achievement. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 5(8), 216–253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Herro, D., et al. (2025). Paradigm shifts and computational tools in modern learning. Journal of Digital Fluency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Kalmamatova, Z., et al. (2020). Graphic organizers as effective methods in teaching classroom English. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Kansizoglu, A. (2020). Graphic organizers for students with diverse learning needs. Special Education Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Kilickaya, F. (2020). Visual tools for analyzing information and recognizing patterns. Educational Technology Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Kim, E., & Lee, Y. (2020). Graphic organizers in problem-based learning: A constructivist perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(3), 429–442. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Koto, I. (2020). Guided learning with visual aids and procedural knowledge improvement. Science Instruction Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Kurniaman, O. (2020). Structured visual learning strategies for elementary students. Primary Education Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Kurniaman, O., Oktari, C., & Pahrurazi. (2020). The implementation of teaching materials reading graphic organizers in elementary schools. Lensa: Kajian Kebahasaan, Kesusastraan, dan Budaya, 9(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Kurniaman, O., & Zufriady, Z. (2020). The effectiveness of teaching materials for graphic organizers in reading in elementary school students. Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Lee, C.-Y., & Hsu, T.-W. (2022). Mind mapping and collaborative learning in elementary social studies classrooms. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Leorito, P. (2025). Self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) and visual scaffolds in science. Journal of Learner Autonomy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Ligasan, J., & Doysabas, M. (2024). Preparedness gap among pre-service and in-service teachers: The case of digital graphic organizers. Journal of Teacher Professional Development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Lubin, J., & Sewak, M. (2020). Enhancing learning through the use of graphic organizers: A review of the literature. LC Journal of Special Education, 2(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Mannag, M., & Dagdag, J. (2024). Graphic organizers and significant vocabulary acquisition. Language Education Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Marcelo, C., & Baptista, P. (2023). Validity of digital alternative instructional resources in school systems. Educational Infrastructure Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Mayo, R. (2024). Constraints in implementing innovative teaching strategies in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Academic Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (2020). A meta-analysis of graphic organizer instruction. Reading Research Quarterly. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Nair, P., & Mohd Said, N. E. (2020). The effect of graphic organizer (KWL chart) on young learners' reading comprehension in an ESL setting. International Journal of Management and Humanities, 4(8). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Nehru, P. (2020). Curriculum demands and the regular use of graphic organizers. Teacher Professionalism Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2020). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. IHMC CmapTools. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Nurhayati, S. (2022). Grounded visual structures and meaningful reading for EFL students. Journal of Applied Linguistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 findings: Learning during the pandemic. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Patil, S. J., Chavan, R. L., & Khandagale, V. S. (2020). Identification of misconceptions in science: Tools, techniques & skills for teachers. Aarhat Multidisciplinary International Education Research Journal, 8(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Petallar, G., & Mosa, L. (2025). New post-pandemic challenges: Cognitive overload in digital learning. Contemporary Education Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Méndez, S. A. (2025). Publication bias and the small-study effect in graphic organizer research: A meta-analysis of gray literature. Educational Psychology Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Razzaq, A., Qaisar, S., & Javed, Z. (2022). Elementary school teachers' perceptions toward the use of graphic organizers. Global Educational Studies Review, VII(II), 60–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Roberts, J., et al. (2006). Finding common ideas and strengths through systematic review. Educational Research Methodology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Samosa, R. C., et al. (2021). Opinion, reason, explanation and opinion (OREO) as an innovation to improve learners' writing skills among Grade Four learners. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research, 5(12), 166–172. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Santika, E. E., Anita, F., & Darajad, A. (2021). A systematic review of the graphic organizers method in reading comprehension. (JELTE), 2(2), 31–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Setyawati, T., & Nugroho, Y. (2023). Improving vocabulary mastery through semantic maps among Grade 3 pupils. Indonesian Journal of Primary Education, 7(1), 23–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Setyowati, D., Samsudi, & Raharjo, T. J. (2020). The effectiveness of concept mapping on social skills of students in social learning of elementary school. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Styati, E. W., & Irawati, L. (2020). The effect of graphic organizers on ELT students’ writing quality. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Sudarman, R., et al. (2024). Constructivism in writing learning in elementary school: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Research and Applied Technology, 4(1), 176–192. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Tabon, M., & Tomas, S. (2025). Bridging decoding and comprehension: Scaffolding and motivation. Journal of Reading Psychology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Taheri Asl, M., & Setayeshi, M. (2023). Scaffolding constructivism and reciprocal instruction (CAR): A multi-instruction to improve elementary students' comprehension skills. Journal of Preschool and Elementary Education, 4(2), 55–66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Thomas, A., & Smith, R. (2021). Visual scaffolding with Venn diagrams in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Inclusive Education Studies, 5(2), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Thomas, A., & Smith, R. (2020). Supporting Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in diverse classrooms with graphic organizers. Inclusive Pedagogies Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. UNICEF. (2022). The state of global learning poverty: 2022 update. UNICEF. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Urton, K., et al. (2025). Effects of graphic organizers on outcomes for students with disabilities: Three-level meta-analysis of single-case studies. Exceptionality, 33(1), 17–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. USAID. (2021). Rigid curriculum requirements and conceptual understanding in education. USAID Research Series. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Vargas Vásquez, R., & Zuñiga Coudin, A. (2020). Strategic reading and main idea distinction through repeated implementation of organizers. Journal of Reading Strategy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Wang, Y. (2020). Using structured charts to enhance reading of elementary EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Wanpen, S. (2020). Constructivist strategies and high student satisfaction. International Journal of Student Engagement. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. World Bank. (2022). The education crisis: New data on learning poverty. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Yang, H., & Lin, Y. (2024). Graphic organizers as bridges in programming and computational thinking domains. Modern Pedagogy Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Yen, Y. C., et al. (2023). Integrating mind mapping into a flipped classroom to improve students' learning performance. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Zaini, M., et al. (2022). The effectiveness of using graphic organizers in learning biology. International Journal of Instruction. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Zhang, J. (2021). The effect of graphic organizers on reading comprehension of English as a foreign language. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study