IMPROVE YOUR SCIENTIFIC WRITING WITH PRINCIPLES OF LANDSCAPE ART COMPOSITION

ABSTRACT

The scientific research article is a careful balance of factual information and social interaction in which academic writers need to make the results of their research public and persuasive. Although scientific communication through journal articles has a history spanning over 350 years, there remains significant potential for improvement. I hypothesize that compositional strategies employed by artists—particularly landscape artists—can enhance academic scientific writing by promoting interaction and improving persuasive communication. This article explores how principles fundamental to landscape art, such as notan, focal point, element hierarchy, the 80/20 rule, simplification, and repetition, can enhance scientific writing. Awareness and adoption of these artistic techniques can make the scientific writing process more engaging and enjoyable for lovers of science and art alike.

INTRODUCTION

Science progress relies on clear and persuasive communication. To advance science, every scientist should develop strong communication skills for engaging in meaningful scientific discourse. Like any skill, this requires guidance, training, and practice. Artists, whose goal is to convey meaning through images, face similar challenges. While Hyland proposed techniques such as frame makers, transitions, endophoric markers, hedges, boosters, and self-mention for scientific writing (1), as a physician scientist and watercolor artist, I have been especially attracted to visual arts for insights into persuasive communication. I am particularly inspired by artists like Artemesia Gentileschi and Vincent van Gogh, whose powerful storytelling and resilience amid adversity left a lasting legacy that continues to resonate with us today. This article explores compositional strategies used by landscape artists (2), as a means to enhance scientific writing.

The research article is a sophisticated and careful balance of factual information and social interaction (1). It serves a vital role in the scientific community by communicating ideas and information efficiently and effectively, allowing for scrutiny that ensures the quality and reliability of the research. Through this process, research articles foster consensus within the scientific community—known as “rhetorical persuasion”—while contributing to the construction of new knowledge that advances global research and development. Additionally, they convey the beauty and evolving understanding of the workings of the world around us. Scientific communication, therefore, is not only about sharing data but also about engaging in meaningful social interaction.

Historically, scientific communication evolved from letters, exchanged between “natural philosophers”, to the structured research article we know today (Table 1). This shift toward a structured format and the peer review system relies on the reviewers’ understanding to judge the validity, significance, and originality of the work, underscoring the necessity of clear and organized reporting. The research article emerged almost simultaneously in England and France (Figure 1), with both countries laying claim to being the first. The French Journal des sçavans (later renamed Journal des savans and then Journal des savants, literally Journal of the Learned), established by Denis de Sallo in January 1665, was the earliest European scientific journal (3). Though its publication was interrupted by the French Revolution, and it later transformed into a literary journal, it laid the groundwork for scientific publishing. Meanwhile, in England, The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society—A covering mathematical, physical, and engineering science and B covering biological sciences—was launched in March 1665 by Henry Oldenburg. It is self-described as the world’s “first and longest-running scientific journal” (4) and is still publishing scientific articles to this day.

Table 1.

The Evolution of the Research Article

Means	Natural Philosophers	Scientists (1833)
Form	Letters	Structured articles
Establish credibility	Testimony of credible witnesses	Technical details
Experience	Qualitative	Quantitative
Reliance	Five senses	Statistics
Ethos	Trust between gentlemen	Peer review and verification

In part derived from Hyland and Salager-Meyer 2008 (1).

Fig. 1.

France and England originated the first scientific research journals over 350 years ago.

Despite over 350 years of “experience”, scientists often have a reputation for poor writing (5), with storytelling pitfalls in research articles being commonplace. One contributing factor may be that writing skills are rarely taught during scientific training (5). This article aims to address these deficiencies, in part, through the hypothesis that storytelling techniques from landscape painting can enhance scientific writing. I hypothesize that compositional techniques from art—especially those used by landscape painters—offer valuable insights that can improve scientific writing for both novices and experienced researchers. To paraphrase Patrick Bringley (6), the objective here is to learn from art, rather than merely learning about it.

Although the landscape genre in Eastern art dates back to fourth-century China, the classical landscape in Western art emerged in the seventeenth century. However, it was only in the nineteenth century that landscape painting gained respect as an independent genre in European art academies and became popular in the United States as well (7). Art historian Kenneth Clark attributes this rise to a cultural shift, in which the concept of God in nature began to replace the declining church as a spiritual focus (8). Before this shift, landscapes primarily served as backgrounds in religious, historical, or mythological scenes, as in Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus, or as a setting for portraiture, like Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.

METHODS

This article evolves from an empirical understanding of both painting and scientific writing that I have developed as an amateur watercolorist and physician scientist with over 30 years’ experience. Drawing from scientific and artistic resources, it offers insights that, while not amenable to statistical analysis, could perhaps be evaluated by metrics like manuscript acceptance, or grant success rates among writers applying these techniques. I have chosen to highlight the urban landscape by Gustave Caillebotte, Paris Street: Rainy Day (1877, Art Institute of Chicago), to illustrate landscape composition principles that may be applied to scientific writing. Pictures of this art are in the public domain, as Caillebotte died in 1894, satisfying copyright terms both in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 100 years or fewer (Caillebotte died in 1894), and in the United States where it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929 (9).

This article seeks to bridge the strategies of visual arts, specifically landscape composition, with the language-focused realm of scientific writing. This approach resonates with two key learning styles—visual and linguistic—and, according to the combination learning model (10), individuals learn best through a mix of instructional components across learning types. In addition to Paris Street: Rainy Day, this article references other notable landscapes that exemplify key principles discussed here.

RESULTS

Compelling scientific research articles, like well-crafted compositions, do not happen by chance. This work addresses five common pitfalls that can hinder effective storytelling in scientific writing: lack of cohesion, the tendency to save the “best for last”, presenting results in chronological rather than logical order, giving equal emphasis to primary main and secondary findings, and using a flowery “creative writing” style. Drawing on principles from landscape painting, each of these challenges can be overcome to enhance the clarity and impact of the research article.

To illustrate these remedial strategies, I have chosen to analyze Gustave Caillebotte’s urban landscape painting Paris Street: Rainy Day (1877), which captures the Place de Dublin intersection in late nineteenth-century Paris (Figure 2A). This paining enshrines the modern Paris developed by Baron Haussmann during the Second Empire under Napolean III from 1852–1870 (11). Measuring over 2 × 2.76 meters (6½ × 9 feet), this monumental oil-on-canvas artwork has been housed at the Art Institute of Chicago for over 50 years. Below, I summarize each common writing challenge and a corresponding strategy employed by landscape artists that can serve as a “remedy” (Table 2).

Fig. 2.

Artistic “remedies” for common challenges in conveying a scientific story. (A) Paris Street: Rainy Day by Gustave Caillebotte in 1877; (B) notan principle illustrated, with primary masses outlined; (C) focal point (the couple in the foreground) outlined; (D) element hierarchy guiding the viewer’s eye along a path from areas labeled 1 through 5, creating a cohesive narrative; (E) the 80/20 rule, with the majority of detail concentrated on the focal point; (F) simplification and repetition demonstrated through uniform umbrellas (13 in total), some outlined, as well as other repetitive elements like cobblestones, and secondary figures. Figure created with BioRender, agreement #BC274BWXAQ.

Table 2.

Landscape Painting Techniques as Remedies for Common Challenges in Scientific Storytelling

Writers’ Challenge	Artists’ Remedy
Dealing with lack of cohesion	Notan principle—compose and construct with essential shapes/masses (Japanese)
Saving “best for last”	Focal point that “draws the eye” immediately
Presenting results in chronological order	Element hierarchy
Giving equal attention to main and secondary findings	The 80/20 rule
Using flowery “creative” writing	Simplification and repetition

Notan Principle

In any composition, two key goals are to convey meaning clearly and in the simplest and most readable terms possible (12). The Japanese design principle of “notan”—focusing on essential shapes and patterns, light and dark—can guide us toward these goals by emphasizing essential forms and patterns in a simplified, impactful way. Applying notan metaphorically to scientific writing can enhance the structure and clarity of research articles by ensuring that each section has a distinct, purposeful role in advancing the overall narrative, thereby helping to overcome lack of cohesion in a written article. In Caillebotte’s Paris Street: Rainy Day, the large masses of buildings and the cobblestone street form a structural non-cluttered backdrop (Figure 2B) that recedes into the background and does not compete with the focal point (described below). Similarly, in scientific writing, each paragraph should address a specific point in a deliberate, hierarchical order (described below), allowing for a seamless, cohesive flow of information. By defining the main purpose of each section and organizing elements in a noncompeting and hierarchical manner, writers can craft an article that is both clear and compelling.

Focal Point

An effective composition begins with a deliberate and limited focus (13). As artist Hans Hoffman stated, we must “eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak” (13). Focal points provide definition and purpose to a landscape, guiding the viewer’s attention. In Paris Street: Rainy Day, the focal point is the couple walking toward the viewer in the foreground, slightly off-center to the right (Figure 2C). They stand out due to their larger scale, prominent positioning, greater detail, and more vibrant coloring compared to the other figures in the painting. In scientific writing, this principle translates to clearly identifying the core message of the research and presenting it prominently, ideally near the beginning of the results section, rather than relegating it to the end. Thus, this principle applies not only to the focal point, which serves as the main point of interest, but to the overall manuscript as well. Establishing this hierarchy early on sets the stage for the rest of the document. As watercolor artist Brenda Swenson advises, “Never begin a painting without first asking yourself, ‘What do I want to say’” (14). Likewise, Dr. George D. Gopen wisely advises, based on reader expectation theory (15), continually ask yourself throughout the writing process, “Whose story is it anyway?” These questions can help maintain a clear focus and purpose throughout your writing (Table 3).

Table 3.

Landscape Art Principles Can Be Linked to George Gopen’s Reader Expectation Approach to Persuasive Writing

Landscape Principles	Writing Principles	Ask/Tell Yourself*
Notan principle	Build with series of figures**, an outline or graphical abstract; determine issues/topic of each paragraph	“Whose paragraph is this anyway?”
Focal point	Determine “whose story” it is	“Whose story is this anyway?” “What do I want to say?”
Element hierarchy	Create distinct paragraph types: first, last, medial, with point at end of first and last paragraphs but at the beginning of most others	“When I control movement, I control thought.”
80/20 rule	Provide more details for the primary (main) outcome(s) and result(s) with emphasis on the overall article structure as it contributes 85% to how a reader perceives meaning while word choice contributes only 15%	“Context controls meaning.”
Simplification and repetition	Follow the sentence structure: “Whose story—Action—Stress” to reduce the “reader energy” needed for understanding	“I do not need to vary the way I begin my sentences to keep my reader interested.”

 *Adapted from Gopen 2004 (15).

**Figures often represent the core findings of your research, and each figure tells a part of the story; their use as the notan can make the writing process more efficient since the figures already provide a clear framework for the manuscript.

Element Hierarchy

Secondary themes and supporting information enrich a composition, adding context and depth without overpowering the central theme. The principle of notan also applies here, balancing primary elements—such as key findings and major arguments—and secondary elements like background information and supplementary data. Just as a skilled artist guides the viewer’s eye through a composition, an effective writer structures information to lead the reader through a logical sequence of ideas. The hierarchy of elements should create a natural and logical flow, with each section or paragraph building upon the previous one. Such structure not only maintains coherence but also facilitates the reader’s understanding of the text.

In Paris Street: Rainy Day, this hierarchy is illustrated in Figure 2D by the regions of the painting labeled in a numbered progression from 1 to 5. The viewer’s eye is first drawn to the focal point—the couple (#1)—then follows their gaze to the expansive cobblestone street (#2), then up to the architectural details following the vertical lines of the cobblestones (#3). The perspective lines of the main architectural mass direct the viewer’s attention back to the couple, drawing attention to a nearby man on the right about to bump into the couple (#4), before finally taking in the smaller ancillary figures carrying umbrellas (#5). This thoughtful arrangement creates a cohesive and compelling narrative, underscoring how hierarchy can weave a rich story. Implementing this strategy in writing, through a preparatory outline or graphical abstract, can similarly strengthen the narrative structure. If your data are strong and well-visualized, an efficient means of implementation might also involve structuring the manuscript around the figures. Writing around the figures as the foundation ensures that each part of the manuscript directly supports the data, minimizing unnecessary tangents or weak connections.

80/20 Rule

In composition, the 80/20 rule suggests that an artist should concentrate around 80% of the details in only 20% of the composition, typically the focal point, while keeping secondary elements less defined. This approach creates a balanced presentation in which the main theme stands out clearly, and supporting information frames and enhances it without competing for attention. In Paris Street: Rainy Day, Caillebotte applies the 80/20 rule by sharply detailing the focal point of the couple in the foreground, while the surrounding figures, carriages, buildings, and sky remain muted and less detailed, supporting the primary focus without creating distractions (Figure 2E).

This mirrors our natural perception of detail, with central vision providing sharp, detailed and focused images, and peripheral vision being less precise (16). Our brains interpret this balance as natural because our visual system emphasizes different types of information in the central versus peripheral fields (17). In humans, color vision and form perception are concentrated in the center of the visual field due to the high density of cone cells in the fovea—the central region of the retina—which are connected to color-sensitive parvocellular retinal ganglion cells (neuronal P-cells). This pathway has a larger representation in the visual cortex. In contrast, the periphery of the retina contains more rod cells, which are color-insensitive but sensitive to low light and movement and are connected to motion-sensitive magnocellular retinal ganglion cells (neuronal M-cells), which have a smaller representation in the visual cortex. This configuration allows central vision to excel at detecting color and detail, while peripheral vision is particularly attuned to detecting motion, enabling us to notice movement even without fine detail or color. This balance between central and peripheral vision provides a cohesive view of the world, with our brains seamlessly integrating both types of information to create a natural, unified perception.

In scientific writing, the 80/20 rule serves a similar purpose, especially in the Results section. By highlighting key findings in the main text and relegating detailed data to tables or supplementary materials, the writer maintains a focused, clear narrative and avoids cognitive overload. Similarly, in the Discussion section, emphasizing the significance of findings and their implications while reserving secondary details for supporting context streamlines the argument, making it easier for readers to grasp the core message. This approach allows a manuscript to offer comprehensive insights without overwhelming the reader.

In a striking parallel between art and writing, Dr. Gopen suggests that word choice is “overrated”—that is, less critical than structural clarity in shaping how readers interpret meaning. He argues that word choice contributes only about 15% to comprehension, while structural elements account for 85% of the reader’s understanding (15). In this context, the 80/20 rule underscores the importance of structure for guiding readers smoothly through complex information.

Simplification and Repetition

Simplifying content and repeating key elements can enhance both artistic compositions and scientific writing, making complex ideas more accessible and memorable. In Paris Street: Rainy Day (Figure 2F), Caillebotte used recurring elements—umbrellas, similar clothing, and uniform architecture—that create visual harmony and contribute to the painting’s readability. He further simplified the painting by omitting the actual rain, although its absence led to ridicule in the daily newspaper Le Temps: “M. Caillebotte forgot to represent the rain. Apparently, it made no impression on him that day.” (18). These intentionally understated elements support rather than compete with the painting’s focal point. Interestingly, Caillebotte’s contemporaries at the journal Le Radical mocked the uniformity of the 13 nearly identical gray silk umbrellas, suggesting they looked like mass-produced items from department stores like Le Bon Marché or Les Grands Magasins du Louvre (19). Moreover, since the invention of the foldable umbrella in France over 100 years prior, the umbrella was viewed as a mark of those who did not own a carriage. Today, these umbrellas adequately symbolize both rain and the modernization of Paris, reflecting Georges-Eugène Haussmann’s transformed boulevards, which replaced the medieval streets of 1853 with the grand avenues that still define the Paris cityscape today (20).

In writing, simplification and repetition reduce cognitive load (i.e., the energy of interaction and threshold for understanding), thereby making complex information easier for readers to follow and understand. Many writers approach the task of creating a research article as they might approach creative writing, varying sentence structure and word choice from sentence to sentence. However, quite the converse is optimal for scientific writing. In scientific writing, clarity and consistency are paramount, and both are promoted through the use of repeated words and consistent sentence structures, such as the “Whose story—Action—Stress” format recommended by Dr. Gopen (15). Repeating specific wording and structure when discussing related results reinforces key points, reducing distraction from stylistic variation. In short, scientific writing thrives on simplicity and consistency. Keeping in mind that “this is not a creative writing exercise” can help you focus on clarity and impact.

Linking to Reader Expectation

Dr. Gopen’s reader expectation approach has reshaped scientific writing, offering insights into crafting persuasive and reader-centered content (15). Each of the landscape composition principles discussed above aligns with writing strategies advocated by him (Table 3). Additionally, his suggested phrases for internal dialogue—outlined in the Ask/Tell Yourself column of Table 3—help guide the writing process, keeping focus on clarity and coherence. Integrating visual composition principles with Dr. Gopen’s strategies creates a robust framework for achieving both clarity and impact in scientific communication and thereby enhances the social interaction component necessary for persuasion.

DISCUSSION

Both a landscape painting and a research article need to be crafted with skill, attention to detail, and creativity. Each seeks to convey meaningful insights to its audience and make a lasting contribution to its field. Just as a well-composed painting has a deliberate compositional structure, a research article is organized into sections—abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion—each with a distinct role in conveying the overall message. In Paris Street: Rainy Day, Gustave Caillebotte masterfully uses notan, focal point, element hierarchy, the 80/20 rule for emphasis, and simplified, repeated, patterns to create a cohesive and engaging composition. These techniques draw the viewer’s eye, create a sense of depth, and capture the dynamic energy of a rainy Parisian street. The thoughtful use of such compositional principles offers a powerful model for scientific writing, where a similar clarity of focus, organization, and emphasis can enhance readability and social engagement. Some of my favorite paintings that illustrate these “artists’ remedies” are listed in Table 4. Applying these visual storytelling strategies can be as inspiring and beneficial to the scientist as they are to the artist.

Table 4.

Design Principles of Landscape Art Illustrated by Additional Artists and Their Paintings

Painter	Landscape Title	Year	Location	Comments
Vanessa Bell	Landscape with Haystacks, Asheham	1912	Smith College Museum of Art, Northampton, Massachusetts	A clear homage to Monet, Bell synthesized the post-impressionist style to create a unique, modern approach to landscape painting that didn’t exist in England (21); this painting exemplifies the principle of a strong focal point
Rosa Bonheur	Plowing in the Nivernais	1849	Musée Nationale du Chateau de Fontainebleau, France	Bonheur was known as the foremost French “animalier” (animal painter) of her day (22); this painting well exemplifies the principle of simplification and repetition
Pieter Bruegel the Elder	Return of the Hunters	1565	Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria	This is said to be the first time that landscape was the dominant part of a painting (23); this painting is an excellent example of the 80/20 rule
Gustave Caillebotte	Paris Street: Rainy Day	1877	The Art Institute of Chicago, Illinois	This painting reflects the radical urbanization of Paris by Napoleon III and his architect, Baron Haussmann (24); this urban landscape painting is used as the exemplar for this article as it demonstrates all the principles discussed
John Constable	The Hay Wain	1821	National Gallery, London, England	This painting became “part of the landscape of every English mind” (23) and contains a strong central focal point—the wagon (hay wain) in the river, and a nice hierarchy of elements
David Hockney	Garrowby Hill	1998	Museum of Fine Arts, Boston	A quilt-like mosaic of colored fields with a serpentine lilac road draws in the eye; this painting exemplifies the notan principle of distinct shapes and masses
Winslow Homer	The Gulf Stream	1899	The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York	This powerful painting addresses deep symbolic meanings (25); the man on the boat is the focal point with repetitive wave patterns representing a turbulent sea, hierarchical elements include the boat, sea, and distant horizon
Gustav Klimt	Schloss Kammer on the Attersee I	1908	Narodni Gallerie v Praze, Prague	This painting illustrates how Klimt’s style of pointillism developed in a mosaic-like form (26) that well illustrates the notan principle
Jean-François Millet	The Gleaners	1857	Musée d’Orsay, Paris	With his emphasis on ordinary people and work, many consider Millet to be the father of modern-day impressionism; in this painting, the three women gleaning in the field are focal points with a clear hierarchy of additional figures, fields, and distant workers
Claude Monet	Impression, Sunrise	1872	Museum Marmottan, Paris, France	Based on the title of this painting, the term “impressionist” was coined by a critic who was derisive of this style; the painting exemplifies a distinct and strong focal point in a boat and boatman in the foreground
Georgia O’Keefe	Above the Clouds I	1962	Georgia O’Keefe Museum (Santa Fe)	This beautiful painting hovers between pattern and landscape and beautifully exemplifies the principle of simplification and repetition
Helene Schjerfbeck	Trees and Sunset, Hiidenvesi	1942	Finnish National Gallery	A superb example of simplification resulting in a high impact, interpretable, and moving sunrise landscape
Tom Thomson	The Jack Pine	1916	National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa	This is a contender as Thomson’s greatest work (27) and exemplifies a strong focal point in the protagonist, the prominent pine
Vincent van Gogh	Wheatfield with Crows	1890	Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands	If you reject the notion of his suicide as outlined by Naifeh and Smith (28), then you will see this painting as an evocation of spiritual transcendence; it well exemplifies the principle of notan with the picture plane separated by clear large areas of field and sky

DISCUSSION

Wilson, Durham: Thank you for a great presentation. When I came to Duke as an associate professor, I took Dr. Gopen’s course because I wasn’t satisfied with my writing (I am still not satisfied with it). It’s really awesome, and I strongly recommend people doing that.

Kraus, Durham: I’m so glad you said that, Joanne. I’ve actually, over the course of my career, taken it three times.

Lange, El Paso: Same art every time or different?

Kraus, Durham: No, he gets better and better with age … yes.

Bass, Baltimore: It’s been a few years since Katie and I were classmates with Virginia and Bill, so we are delighted to see you again here. As a recovering journal editor, I love this presentation and wonder if you have any suggestions for other journal editors about what we could do to modify the peer review process to incorporate the kind of principles that you’ve eloquently presented.

Kraus, Durham: Yes, that is a great question from the journal article perspective. Personally, I find that the outline process is one that we tend to skirt over. We probably had to do it in school; I myself jettisoned it long ago. I have really tried to go back to that, and train that. I have noticed that when we do a checklist for journals, it’s not really outline form. It’s more about what page did you do this and what page did you do that as opposed to being structural. I don’t know if stating “We would love to see your outline” would help or not. It’s great to see you, Eric.

Bass, Baltimore: Good to see you.

Howell, Ann Arbor: That was a fantastic talk. I often go to the Art Institute and stand in front of that painting. I’m going to appreciate it a great deal more so thank you for that. What about pedagogy? Medical schools revise their curriculums—I think it’s every 10 years they have to provide a complete assessment and every 20 years they call it revolutionary. Since the turn of the twentieth century, we’ve acted as though science is not only important but it’s the only thing that’s important. Do you think there’s a role for the arts—the visual arts, maybe the musical arts, and maybe the dramatic arts—as a means of communicating with our peers through journal articles and interacting with our patients? And do you think that art could belong somewhere in the curriculum alongside the basic sciences?

Kraus, Durham: Oh, I love that question. I often times think of us clinician researchers as master chefs because we have to know how things work but then we have to go in the kitchen and create new things. There are so many similarities among these different disciplines at a high level that we can learn from one another; maybe we need some master chefs and master artists in the American Clinical and Climatological Association (ACCA). I do think it really enriches our lives because what we ultimately are all doing is the creative process and trying to understand the world around us. Your question reminded me of something that happened a long time ago, which I only found out through discussions with the people in my lab. I went through one of the early manuscripts that I got from one of my trainees with a red pen. (Nowadays you do it on the computer, but it was a red pen in those days.) Apparently, I was really afraid of how they were going to take it because there were a lot of red pen markings. Since a few words were left of their original still on the page, they took it very positively.

Stevenson, Nashville: Thank you so much. This was such a lovely aesthetic adventure. It reminds me of an ACCA meeting where Billy Collins presented our address on Saturday night. This is almost as impactful in terms of bringing in art. The point I would like to make is about the outline. I would like to make it again, and again, and again, and again—if you can’t write the outline, you can’t think, whether it’s for grant proposals or articles or whatever. I actually insist that before any junior faculty or trainee gives me a manuscript that they also give me an outline. I also know that a couple of journals now are actually insisting on an outline before someone submits a review with multiple authors. So, all I can say is viva the outline forever.

Kraus, Durham: That is a wonderful comment. Thank you so much for that. I have been insisting that those first authors with whom I work provide a graphical abstract; if they can’t, I resist helping them and ask them to go back to the drawing board and come back when they have a graphical abstract. If you cannot present material in a graphical abstract form, the big masses (the notan principle) are not there yet. I think some people are visual learners and others are more textual or auditory. Maybe having both a graphical abstract and the written outline might be a really good way to inculcate this for all types of learners.