Parent Tip: The limits of graphic organizers
If you are the parent of a student in upper elementary or middle school, it’s quite likely that your child has brought home something that looks like the graphic organizers above. Graphic organizers have become the standard way of teaching writing en masse in the United States. This is understandable. If you are teaching a room full of children at a wide range of writing levels, graphic organizers and Mad-Lib-analyses of ideas are fairly bullet-proof ways to ensure that all kids generate an organized text. This blog post is not meant to be an insult to these tools or the teachers who use them. Rather, we want to discuss what these tools do and don’t do, and where our method differs.
What graphic organizers do
As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, there isn’t widespread agreement in U.S. education circles on what writing is, let alone what we want kids to be able to do. We can all agree that we want students to graduate able to write clean, mechanically correct sentences and texts. We also want kids to be able to write essays, though we don’t agree on why. For some education leaders, the important part is that kids can imitate the form of an essay. Graphic organizers are great tools for accomplishing this tool. They do a fantastic job of helping kids organize pieces of information and teach kids what an argument looks like. This is not to be derided. It is crucial that every U.S. citizen can at least recognize an argument and organize information. We need a shared understanding of the value and structure of an argument to be able to discuss ideas with each other.
What graphic organizers don’t do
The disposition toward arguments that is conveyed in a graphic organizer is that an argument is something to be organized, not explored. This is the LEGO model approach to argumentation and is part of why so many school writing assignments are so susceptible to AI plagiarism; assembling and organizing information within well-known forms are the forte of LLMs. Still, this might be the best possible approach to teaching kids of so many varying abilities in one class to structure their thoughts.
But what about the kids who are capable of more? Argument organization creates awareness of arguments, but it doesn’t easily facilitate discussion and advancement of ideas because graphic organizers help kids monologue, not dialogue. Nor do they engage the deep elements underneath arguments or ideas. To do that, you need to teach kids—who are up to the challenge—to grow arguments with more depth. Teach them to think of essays as a chance to explore and discuss ideas with other thinkers.
We’ve written previously about our approach to building arguments using a three-layer system. June Writers teaches kids graphic ways of organizing their basic arguments, just like these graphic organizers, but only as one part of developing an argument. We also spend a lot of time teaching kids to analyze themes, find connections between their ideas, think through their audience and rhetorical strategy, and more. For some kids, this would be too much. For others, this is the challenge they are hungry for. It’s flattering and exciting to have your teacher seriously engage with your ideas, though as any teacher knows, it’s also incredibly time-intensive. Hence the appeal of graphic organizers to teachers juggling many students and little time—most of them.
But, if you have the resources and students to use it, our method generates inspiring work. Below is an essay written by one of our students. Before you read the essay, glance at the graphic organizers above once more. Then, as you read, ask yourself whether using an organizer would generate this essay. Where does that tool support this work and where does the student need a different disposition toward argumentation?
Student Writing Example
Prompt: Persuade your audience that the article in the reading is fair or unfair.
Essay by J. H.
Truth is important, and readers need to be able to discern when it is absent. There are many articles which have a distinct lack of fairness, and although The New York Times article, "Tough Poodle Is Bested, and Owner Wants to Curb Dog-Eat-Dog Runs" by Janet Allon, March 9, 1997 is not one of them, it is still somewhat unfair. It contains a bit of rhetorically unfair writing, such as a bias against the “tough poodle” and his owner, but nowhere near enough for it to ruin the article.
Allon’s article is about a quarrel that went down in New York involving dog runs, a feisty poodle named Louie, and his owner, Alice Amelar. Louie got into a fight with another dog, which ended up causing his nose to get scratched. This enraged Mrs. Amelar, causing her to make many complaints. Many people who had an interest in dog runs, whether that be dog owners, park managers, or members of the local Community Board, deeply disagreed with Mrs. Amelar, only leading to more frustration on her end. The Washington Post also published an article about this situation, namely “A Poodle Named Louie Stirs up a Real Dogfight in New York” by Blaine Harden, March 29, 1997. This piece goes much more in depth regarding background information and consequences of the happenings, informing the reader about things such as a letter sent by Mrs. Amelar protesting the construction of a new dog run. It also seems to acknowledge the absurdity of the situation, and does not fully take things seriously, which could portray certain things in an unfair way. This brings up the question: what is it that makes an article fair?
Fair newspaper articles should contain all relevant information, cover all sides of an issue, and maintain a neutral stance. Writers should make every effort to be fair and correct in order to accurately inform their readers, recognizing that anchoring bias, a well-studied cognitive bias, will likely lead the audience to believe the first thing they read about an issue, as explained in “The Anchoring Effect: What It Is And How To Overcome It” by Bryce Hoffman, published in Forbes Magazine, February 24, 2024. As a newspaper of record, The New York Times is expected to publish fair, factual, and unbiased articles. Janet Allon’s piece does not quite hit the mark.
This is clear from the outset. The first sentence of Allon’s article is “Word around the dog run is that Louie had it coming,” which immediately pitches the reader against Louie and his owner, Mrs. Amelar. This position on the matter continues throughout the article, which would likely skew readers’ opinions. It is also much shorter than Harden’s piece, resulting in less information being given overall. Allon’s article does cover multiple sides of the issue, but does not mention the public hearing that brought Amelar’s letter to light. The lack of information could be due to the article’s editors putting a limit on the length of Allon’s story, but the heavy bias shown immediately in the first sentence is the full responsibility of Allon. However, her bias is understandable in this situation, due to the absurdity of the situation and the ridiculousness of Amelar’s behavior.
After all, this entire series of events boils down to a simple neighborhood squall, yet almost every party involved is absurd to some degree. Mrs. Amelar in particular said many hyperbolic things, such as “I’m the Cassandra,” and “My detractors are wimps.” Louie, the cause of the debacle, was seen humping other dogs, and eventually getting into fights with some of them. All of this makes it hard to stay neutral, as the opposing parties are much more reasonable, and thus may be sided with more often. This may be why Allon’s article is biased, and it is fully understandable if so.
Understandable or not, Allon’s New York Times article, “Tough Poodle Is Bested, and Owner Wants to Curb Dog-Eat-Dog Runs” is somewhat unfair. The ridiculousness of a story and some of the people involved makes it hard for a reporter to maintain neutrality, which is exactly what is happening with Allon’s article. This can happen in many other situations, but that does not mean the media should not be held accountable for it. There is often room for this “understandable bias,” but writers and reporters should try their best to be neutral and provide facts. Truth is important—but sometimes, accepting the absurdity of life is required as well.
