site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language		 search

The Effect of the Frayer Model on Secondary English Learner Vocabulary Acquisition

May 2025 – Volume 29, Number 1

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113a5

Krista Hulderman
West Fargo Public Schools, USA
<khuldermanatmarkwest-fargo.k12.nd.us>

Justin J. Wageman
North Dakota State University, USA
<justin.wagemanatmarkndsu.edu>

Stacy Duffield
North Dakota State University, USA
<stacy.duffieldatmarkndsu.edu>

James Nyachwaya
North Dakota State University, USA
<james.nyachwayaatmarkndsu.edu>

Abstract

English language students often struggle to acquire and retain academic vocabulary due to limited exposure and insufficient opportunities for meaningful engagement with new words. Explicit, structured vocabulary instruction is essential to acquire word ownership, defined as understanding a word’s meaning and using it in various contexts. This study investigated the implementation of the Frayer Model, a graphic organizer for explicit vocabulary instruction, at the secondary level in a specialized English language arts classroom. ELLs (n = 5) participated in the study, and the measures included multiple-choice tests and a writing assessment. Analysis of pre- and post-test scores showed that all students had improved their word ownership after the six-week study, with average test scores increasing by 57%. On the writing assessment, the average score was 69%, demonstrating a moderate understanding of the targeted vocabulary. The results revealed that the Frayer Model is an effective tool for developing word ownership among secondary English learners. Several implications for teachers are discussed, including how to use the Frayer Model as a scaffolded, interactive vocabulary teaching strategy to enhance student comprehension and long-term retention. Future research is needed to examine the effectiveness of the graphic organizer in different grade levels and content areas.

Keywords: Frayer Model, vocabulary acquisition, word ownership, secondary

Promoting vocabulary acquisition is one of the most important tasks, and arguably the biggest challenge, faced by teachers who work with English language learners (ELLs) in primary and secondary schools (August et al., 2005; Graves, 2016; Lightbown & Spada, 2021). An essential element of any language is its vocabulary (Lewis, 2012; Nation, 2001). Without a large and relevant vocabulary bank, an individual cannot use the language effectively to learn and communicate (Motlagh et al., 2020). Schmitt (2008) highlighted the massive lexical learning burden faced by language learners, estimating that 8,000–9,000 word families were necessary for reading comprehension and 5,000–7,000 for conversational proficiency. Adding to the challenge, ELLs often enter classrooms at a significant disadvantage compared to their native-speaking peers (Walqui, 2000).

Learners primarily come to ELL classrooms without the years of exposure and study that their native-speaking peers have received. This results in a vocabulary bank that is often small and limited to conversational words that offer inadequate support for the reading and writing needed to succeed in school (August & Shanahan, 2006). ELLs know fewer English vocabulary words than their native-speaking peers, know less about the meaning of these words, and have lower levels of word knowledge (i.e., knowing the literal meaning, various connotations, synonyms and antonyms of the word, and how to use it properly in speaking and writing) even for frequently occurring words (August et al., 2005). As a result, this affects learners’ recognition or production of subsequent language. The effect of previous exposure to language that either aids or hinders learning is called priming. Specifically, “lexical priming is the tendency for people to process a word, phrase, or collocation [the way individual words co-occur with others] more quickly and more accurately because they have had previous exposure to that code” (Birch, 2023, p. 377). As Hoey (2005) explained, “As a word is acquired through encounters with it in speech and writing, it becomes cumulatively loaded with contexts and co-texts in which it is encountered” (p. 8). This process explains why ELLs, who lack extensive exposure to English in varied contexts, often struggle with collocations (Lewis, 2012) and word associations that support acquiring new words and constructing meaning (Wilks & Meara, 2002).

When vocabulary acquisition is not given enough attention in ELL classrooms, these learners struggle with reading comprehension (Graves, 2016; Tran, 2006). Since the first requirement for reading comprehension is understanding the language (Young, 2005), ELLs must first understand the vocabulary to understand the academic content. Hu and Nation (2000) stated that a reader must know more than 95% of the words in a text without needing to check a dictionary frequently. Teachers play a crucial role in making vocabulary more accessible and relevant by their choice of instructional strategies.

Using strong and engaging vocabulary teaching strategies, teachers can help bridge the gap between the academic language and the language and background knowledge students bring to the class (Young, 2005). For native language learners, vocabulary building often occurs through reading and analyzing texts (Kaya, 2023); however, due to the immense difficulty of reading in a second language, it is unlikely that an ELL will acquire the essential vocabulary knowledge needed to comprehend the text without sufficient instruction from the teacher (Moeller et al., 2009). A common vocabulary teaching strategy requires students in upper primary through secondary to look for the definitions of words in the glossary or dictionary and record them. Technology has greatly influenced this process with the availability of electronic dictionaries, apps, and automatic translation tools that are both common and convenient. Although electronic dictionaries provide ease of access (Nation, 2015), speed, and efficiency (Cohen & Macaro, 2007), studies have revealed they do not necessarily offer an advantage over traditional dictionary use in vocabulary learning, and students must be taught how to use a dictionary (Lewis, 2012; Nation, 2001, 2005, 2022). Additionally, apps and automatic translation tools are generally low-quality (Northrop & Andrei, 2019; Valančiauskienė, 2023). When a dictionary is used as the primary or only method, it is the least effective for thoroughly learning a word (Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Taylor, 2007). In the present study, we sought an effective vocabulary instruction practice for ELLs at the secondary level that promoted a deep understanding of words and texts.

Literature Review

Explicit Instructional Methods

Several studies have shown the effectiveness of explicit instructional methods to further vocabulary acquisition by providing the contextualized, elaborated, and repeated opportunities students need to learn important words throughout their content areas (Baker et al., 2014; Beck et al., 2013; Marzano, 2004; Ngqeleni & Matiso, 2022; Yao, 2020; Young, 2005). Schmitt (2008) stated that explicit instruction is necessary for efficient vocabulary acquisition, particularly for ELLs with limited exposure to English outside the classroom. Ellis (2002) found that explicit instruction accelerates language learning by providing direct, structured exposure to linguistic forms, enabling learners to acquire new vocabulary more efficiently than implicit methods alone. Explicit instruction is underpinned by Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-cultural theory that language learning occurs through interaction with more knowledgeable others (Pais Marden & Herrington, 2024; Téllez & Waxman, 2006). Krashen (1985) supported this with his Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, asserting that learners must be exposed to language slightly above their current proficiency level. The input is made understandable through contextual clues or meaningful, simplified language (Téllez & Waxman, 2006; Waring, 2023). Vocabulary development can be facilitated by interaction between learners and peers, teachers, and content, and greater interaction results in higher levels of vocabulary learning (Ngqeleni & Matiso, 2022; Yao, 2020).

The core practices of explicit instruction are modeling, scaffolding, and corrective feedback. In this interactive approach, the teacher shows the students how to do the task, including examples and non-examples; gives full support at the beginning of the task and then gradually removes the support system until the student is independent; and allows the students to try their best and immediately corrects and guides them to the answer (Richards-Tutor et al., 2016). As the process implies, just seeing a word is not adequate; Webb and Nation (2017) emphasized the importance of not only repeated exposure to the vocabulary but also the quality of the encounter. The learner must work with the word (Hashimoto & Egbert, 2019), noticing and being able to retrieve the word in a variety of contexts; students need interactive learning experiences that build on background knowledge and cognitive skills (Rekrut, 1996; Sheng et al., 2011). Further, students need to explore a word’s origin, its various forms and components, and its connections to other words (Lewis, 2012). Teachers can provide these learning experiences by regularly dedicating time during the lesson for explicit vocabulary instruction (Nation, 2001), exposing students repeatedly to vocabulary terms in multiple oral and written contexts. They can give students sufficient opportunities to practice using new terms through activities such as discussion, writing, and extended reading and provide students with strategies to make them independent vocabulary learners (Baker et al., 2014; Beck et al., 2013; Taylor, 2007).

Nation (2023) advocated using deliberate vocabulary learning strategies, one of four equal strands comprising a balanced language course. A benefit of direct vocabulary learning is that “it allows learners to consciously focus on an aspect of word knowledge that is not easily gained from context or dictionary use” (Nation, 2001, p. 302). He called for learning vocabulary “using word cards and other decontextualized ways” (Nation, 2001, p. 402) because they are “so effective in quickly expanding a learner’s vocabulary knowledge up to a level where they can more easily deal with text which is written within a controlled vocabulary” (Nation, 2023, p. 400). Flashcard learning primarily develops recognition of a word’s form and its connection to meaning. Although this represents a basic level of understanding, it is a crucial foundation for effective word use and is further reinforced through exposure to contextual language interactions. This method aligns with the Frayer Model, which provides both decontextualized and contextualized components to deepen word understanding and ensure that words are not only memorized but meaningfully integrated into language use.

Frayer Model

Known as an evidence-based practice for explicit vocabulary instruction, the Frayer Model is a graphic organizer developed to support concept mastery (Frayer et al., 1969). Research has shown that graphic organizers help clarify the meanings of academic vocabulary by engaging students in structured, visual activities (Baker et al., 2014; Dazzeo & Rao, 2020; Snow, 2023). As a visual support, the Frayer Model is used within a scaffolded activity to help students learn vocabulary words. Studies conducted in the United States have shown the effectiveness of the Frayer Model in non-ELL classrooms at both primary and secondary levels (Greenwood, 2002; Monroe & Pendergrass, 1997; Peters, 1974–1975), higher education (Bowe, 2019), special education (Dazzeo & Rao, 2020), ELL classrooms at the primary level (Marty, 2016), and in other countries with native speakers learning English (Maswani et al., 2024; Panjaitan & Sihotang, 2020).

To use the Frayer Model, the teacher begins with explicit modeling and direct support to help the learner build an extended definition for a selected word, followed by teacher feedback and learner-directed relearning as needed. The student’s extended definition includes what the word is and is not, along with characteristics and examples that provide context for the word, extending far beyond simply copying a definition from the dictionary (Westby, 2024). The components of the organizer require students to engage with the word by thinking about it, describing it, and making connections (Allen, 2007; August et al., 2020). Implementing the Frayer Model enhances students’ vocabulary acquisition (Panjaitan & Sihotang, 2020; Peters, 1974–1975), partly due to meaningful and increased learner interaction (Ngqeleni & Matiso, 2022).

Marzano (2004) found that academic vocabulary development was significantly influenced by several practices, most of which are part of the Frayer Model method. These practices include teacher-driven explicit instruction, identifying examples of the concept, restating the definition in one’s own words, and purposeful peer interaction. Students use the Frayer Model in various ways during the vocabulary acquisition process: before reading to provide background knowledge, during reading to document how a word is used in context, and after reading to help check word comprehension (Westby, 2024). The Frayer Model can help students achieve word ownership by internalizing vocabulary and cultivating a sense of personal mastery and long-term retention.

Word Ownership

To fully grasp the content they are learning, students must know the vocabulary words with such depth that they can recognize and use them in various contexts and associate them with multiple experiences (August et al., 2005; Townsend et al., 2012; Wallace, 2008). This deep knowledge, known as word ownership, involves receptive knowledge—recognizing and understanding words when reading and listening—and productive knowledge—accurately using words in speaking and writing (Allen, 1999; Nation, 2001; Taylor, 2007). While receptive knowledge allows students to comprehend a word’s meaning, word ownership also requires productive use, demonstrating the ability to retrieve and apply a word in communication appropriately. As Greene and Coxhead (2015) explained, “Its meaning(s) must be known when it is recognized and, in order to use it appropriately in communication, its function must be understood.”

Effective vocabulary instruction must provide structured, repeated exposure while promoting contextualized learning and application (Schmitt, 2008; Webb & Nation, 2017). The Frayer Model aligns with these principles by incorporating explicit instruction, scaffolding, and interactive learning to deepen students’ understanding of words beyond memorization. Research literature has shown that the Frayer Model enhances vocabulary acquisition by improving retention, comprehension, and word application (Dazzeo & Rao, 2020; Marty, 2016; Panjaitan & Sihotang, 2020; Peters, 1974–1975). However, studies on its effectiveness across grade levels and content areas have remained limited. No known studies have examined its effectiveness for secondary ELLs. This study addressed that gap by investigating the implementation of the Frayer Model with secondary students in a specialized classroom designed for ELLs at an intermediate proficiency level, where instruction was adapted to support language development while learning academic content.

The following research question guided the study:

  • How will implementing the Frayer Model affect students’ word ownership (defined as understanding a word’s meaning and using it in various contexts) within their reading curriculum?

Methods

Research Design

This classroom research employed a case study design (Merriam, 1998) as an inquiry strategy to examine five English language learners in a secondary language arts class who faced challenges in achieving full word ownership of academic vocabulary. The “case” in this study comprised these five individuals (Creswell, 2015) who used the Frayer Model, a direct instruction method, to learn 24 academic vocabulary words over six weeks.

A pre-test and post-test of multiple-choice questions and a constructed response writing assessment were administered to evaluate the effectiveness of the Frayer Model strategy. The multiple-choice questions were designed to measure three key dimensions of receptive word knowledge: (1) the ability to define the word, (2) recognition of examples and non-examples, and (3) appropriate word usage in context. The tests captured basic word recognition and a deeper contextual understanding of word ownership. The writing assessment, in contrast, provided a measure of productive word knowledge by requiring students to construct original sentences using assigned vocabulary words. Responses were evaluated based on their accuracy, originality, and ability to demonstrate meaningful use of the words in context.

Pre- and post-test scores were compared, and the constructed response writing assessments were evaluated using a four-level analytic rubric (Arter & Chappuis, 2006). The scores were analyzed both individually and collectively. These assessments evaluated vocabulary acquisition, distinguishing between basic recognition and deeper, functional word ownership.

Context and Participants

This case study was conducted in the Upper Midwest region of the United States at a secondary school in a district serving just over 10,000 students. Approximately 170 (11%) students were identified as ELLs. The secondary school of this study served 32 ELLs in grades 9–12. Thirteen of these students were Level 3, according to their ACCESS assessment (https://wida.wisc.edu/assess/access), a summative English language proficiency assessment required for all English learners. Level 3 is “Developing” English proficiency and is generally considered equivalent to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) B1 level (Council of Europe, 2020; MacGregor et al., 2023). The Frayer Model strategy was a good fit for this level of student because of their readiness, knowledge, and skill foundation. “Level 3 [CEFR B1] ELLs have most of their general and some of their specific content vocabulary mastered and are able to communicate in expanded sentences in oral interaction or written paragraphs” (Marty, 2016, p. 25).

Five Level 3 (CEFR B1) students, selected from a convenience sample, participated in the study. All participants were refugees from various countries in Asia and Africa who had been in the United States for less than three years (see Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Student Age Gender Home Language Literate in HL CO Years in U.S.
A 17 M Kreyole No Liberia 1
B 15 M Gujarati Yes India 2
C 16 F Nepali No Bhutan 1
D 15 F Somali Yes Somalia 2
E 15 M Kreyole No Liberia 1

Note. HL = Home language; CO = Country of origin

Ethical Considerations and Informed Consent

Before the study began, the researchers obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to comply with human subjects research protocols. Because the participants were minors, informed consent was obtained from the students and their parents or guardians. As part of the consenting process, the teacher explained the study to the participants, explaining what they would be asked to do, the potential benefits and risks, their participation was entirely voluntary, and their responses might be published or presented.

Participants were assured that their identities would not be disclosed and that all results would be reported in aggregate to protect their confidentiality. Additionally, participants were informed that their involvement in the study would not impact their grades. They also retained the right to withdraw at any time without any academic or personal consequences. After this explanation, parental or guardian consent forms were sent home for signatures. Completed consent forms were returned to an adult at the school rather than the teacher to maintain participant privacy. The forms were given to the teacher at the end of the semester, ensuring that participation status remained confidential throughout the study.

Materials and Instrumentation

Curriculum. Vocabulary words for this study came from Unit 5 of the research-based Hampton-Browns’s Edge: Reading, Writing & Language Level B (Moore et al., 2006). This required curriculum was designed for secondary students and included age-appropriate fiction, nonfiction, and multicultural literature selections. The genre was primarily short stories but also included poems and a biography. Each unit was organized around an essential question to facilitate speaking, listening, reading, thinking, and writing.

Unit 5 was divided into three clusters. Each cluster included two texts, eight academic vocabulary words, and before, during, and after reading activities. Hampton-Brown chose the 24 total vocabulary words because they were high-frequency words across various domains. These words occur often in conversation and literature and strongly influence speaking and reading. As Nation (2001) explained, “Not all words in English are equally valuable; higher-frequency words are much more useful than low-frequency words, offering a strong return on the time and effort spent learning them” (p. 301). When a student fully owns their high-frequency vocabulary words, they comprehend texts more thoroughly, and they can use the words across various environments in both their learning and personal conversations (Moore et al., 2006).

Intervention. The Frayer Model (see Figure 1) is a graphic organizer divided into four quadrants for recording information related to a vocabulary word. Participants (a) define the word, (b) determine key characteristics, and give (c) examples and (d) non-examples of the term. A non-example is a word that is incorrect, unrelated, or opposite of the definition of the target word. Non-examples help students avoid incorrect associations, clarify misconceptions, and deepen understanding. The Frayer Model builds background knowledge and comprehension (Allen, 2007). As participants fill in the quadrants, connections to prior knowledge are activated, facilitating critical thinking to find relationships among words and develop a deeper understanding of the word (Rekrut, 1996).


Figure 1. Frayer Model Graphic Organizer

Measurements. The teacher created a pre-test featuring three multiple-choice items for each vocabulary word related to its definition, examples/non-examples, and word usage. All test items included three alternatives. Besides evaluating the understanding of the vocabulary word, the pre-test measured participants’ reading skills before the intervention.

Like the pre-test, the post-test included multiple-choice questions with three alternatives each for word definitions, examples/non-examples, and word usage. The definition options were rearranged, while the examples, non-examples, and word usage alternatives introduced new contexts not covered during instruction to minimize rote memorization. This design required students to apply their knowledge in unfamiliar situations, encouraging them to move beyond surface-level recognition and show a deeper understanding of the words. By introducing new contexts for each vocabulary word, the post-test provided a more accurate measure of word ownership and reduced the chance of a reactive effect (Popham, 2020). Instead of merely recalling answers from the pre-test, participants had to demonstrate their understanding in new contexts.

Researchers reviewed the multiple-choice test items designed by the teacher for quality using Carr’s (2011) item-writing guidelines. Examples of the guidelines applied to multiple-choice vocabulary tests include ensuring the quality of distractors, controlling the similarity of distractors, avoiding clues from the positioning and length of options, using context thoughtfully, and ensuring that all options are familiar to learners (Hughes, 2003; Nation 2001). In addition to the post-test, participants completed a writing assessment in which they created an original sentence for nine vocabulary words, demonstrating their ability to move from receptive to productive use of the words. A random selection was made using each cluster’s first, fourth, and last words to avoid selecting only the easier words. A four-level analytic rubric (Arter & Chappuis, 2006) was developed to evaluate the sentences, measuring the degree of word ownership by assessing the accuracy, originality, and meaningful use of the words in context:

3: The student wrote a sentence that correctly uses the word and gives a new example not discussed in class. This sentence is a completely original thought.

2: The student wrote a sentence that correctly uses the word but is similar to an example discussed in class. The student changed one or two words from an example discussed in class.

1: The student wrote a sentence that correctly uses the word but is an example discussed in class. The student gave an example used in class.

0: The student wrote a sentence that does not use the word correctly or does not include the word.

Procedure

Participants were administered a pre-test before they were introduced to the unit’s vocabulary words. Following the pre-test, the study of Cluster 1 began with the teacher guiding the participants through a Frayer Model for each vocabulary word. A handout containing eight Frayer Models, one for each vocabulary word, was distributed to the participants. The teacher modeled the first word by thinking aloud while completing the Frayer Model. Then, the remaining seven words were studied. During the initial introduction to each word, participants wrote a definition, one characteristic, one example sentence, and one non-example sentence. The teacher explained that they would revisit their Frayer Models throughout the unit and add to them as they learned more about each word.

The class then proceeded to read a selection from the unit. Once that was finished, the teacher prompted the participants to revisit their Frayer Models. First, they reread the definition they had previously written and compared the word to its usage in the story. Then, they identified the word’s part of speech and other distinctive characteristics. Noting characteristics often included finding synonyms, antonyms, or words from the same word family. Finally, they determined examples of the word and recorded them on the Frayer Model organizer. Participants were asked to think about what made the word distinct from other words or concepts they had learned and write down how they would remember the word. Participants individually added more examples and non-examples to their Frayer Models to demonstrate understanding of the vocabulary words. The teacher reviewed each student’s Frayer Model, providing guidance and feedback.

Participants were expected to use the words in their academic writing to demonstrate word ownership throughout the unit. For example, they wrote a narrative by completing sentence stems about a character while using at least four of their vocabulary words. At the end of each cluster, the Frayer Models were reviewed, and participants were asked to create additional examples and non-examples and write a sentence using each word. After finishing the three clusters in the unit, participants completed a post-test and a writing assessment. The rubric was provided at the top of the writing assessment for students to use as a guide.

Data Analysis

The data analysis process included several steps. First, pre-test responses were recorded in a table, with correct answers marked as 1 and incorrect answers as 0. Scores for definitions, examples/non-examples, and word usage were tabulated, and individual, average, and total scores and percentages were then computed and rounded to the nearest whole number. These scores were securely stored until they could be compared later with post-test scores. Second, post-test scores were analyzed and recorded using the same method as the pre-test. Third, pre- and post-test scores were analyzed by calculating the difference between the two scores and determining the percentage of change. As the data were compared, the vocabulary words were analyzed to categorize them based on the number and percentage of students who maintained or improved their word ownership. Finally, the writing assessment was evaluated using a four-point rubric (0–3 points) that measured sentence originality and accuracy. Total scores were calculated out of a maximum of 27 points, with no reductions for grammar errors to maintain a focus on vocabulary use.

Results

To address the research question regarding the effect of the Frayer Model on students’ word ownership, the pre- and post-test scores were compared. Each multiple-choice test item was worth 1 point, resulting in 72 points for each test (i.e., 3 clusters x 8 vocabulary words x 3 multiple-choice test items). Table 2 shows the pre- and post-test score results. While some students improved their word ownership more than others, all showed growth after using the Frayer Model.

Table 2. Comparison of Pre- and Post-Test Scores

Student Definition Examples/
Nonexamples		 Usage Total
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
A 13 23 15 19 15 12 43 54
B 15 24 15 17 14 18 44 66
C 7 21 12 17 8 17 27 55
D 12 24 12 18 10 21 34 63
E 13 21 11 18 12 18 36 57
M (%) 12 (50) 22 (92) 13 (54) 18 (75) 12 (50) 17 (71) 37 (51) 58 (81)

Students showed the greatest improvement on the definition test questions, with an average score rising from 12 to 22, representing an increase of 83%. Although the scores for examples/non-examples and usage rose by an average of 38% and 42%, respectively, the combined test scores of all three areas (i.e., definition, examples/non-examples, and usage) increased by an average of 57%.

Pre- and post-test score results for each cluster were compared. All students improved their word knowledge on five of the eight (63%) words in Cluster 1 and seven of the eight (88%) words in Cluster 2. However, in Cluster 3, there were only three (38%) words for which all students showed growth.

Scores were further analyzed to identify the words in which students improved most. The results were divided into three categories: Category 1 included words where all students maintained or improved their word ownership. Category 2 included words where four students maintained or improved their word ownership, and Category 3 included words where three students maintained or improved their word ownership. Fifteen of the 24 words (63%) were classified as Category 1 (i.e., boundary, grant, identification, reconciliation, terror, precision, rely, resist, ritual, subside, trace, vulnerable, dread, cease, and relevance), eight words (33%) as Category 2 (i.e., feud, obvious, release, capable, burden, ominous, ponder, and prophet), and one word (4%) as Category 3 (i.e., suspect). In summary, four of the five students in the study were able to maintain or improve their ownership of 96% of the academic vocabulary words.

Writing Assessment Results

Table 3 shows student scores on the writing assessment. The average score was 69%, indicating that students may not have fully developed their word ownership over all the vocabulary words.

Table 3. Writing Assessment Scores

Student
Word A B C D E
Boundary 2 3 0 1 3
Identification 3 0 3 2 3
Terror 3 3 0 3 3
Capable 3 3 3 3 3
Resist 3 0 0 3 3
Vulnerable 3 3 3 3 2
Burden 0 3 0 3 0
Ominous 3 0 3 2 0
Suspect 2 2 0 3 3
Total 22 17 12 23 20
Total (%) 81 63 44 85 74

All five students in this study exhibited full ownership of at least four of the nine words assessed. Four students demonstrated full ownership of at least five words, while three displayed full ownership of at least six vocabulary words. The results indicated that students found the words “burden” and “resist” to be the most challenging.

It was noteworthy that, after the completion of this case study, students used their vocabulary words during discussions. For example, three weeks post-study, Student B mentioned that characters in a story were feuding. Student D then expressed hope those characters could come to a reconciliation. Another instance where a student demonstrated word ownership occurred when a classmate asked a question, and the student said, “I suspect [Student E] wasn’t paying attention.” In these instances, students were not prompted to use the vocabulary words; instead, they appeared to have become part of their everyday vocabulary.

Discussion and Implications for Teachers

Use the Frayer Model

This study’s research question focused on how the Frayer Model affects students’ ownership of academic vocabulary in their reading curriculum. The results demonstrate its effectiveness in improving vocabulary acquisition among secondary English learners, confirming research highlighting its success across different learning contexts. After a six-week intervention, students showed a 57% increase in test scores and an average of 69% on a writing assessment, indicating substantial gains in receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge.

These findings are consistent with broader research on the Frayer Model’s impact. Panjaitan and Sihotang (2020) found that students using the Frayer Model significantly outperformed those using Concept Mapping, reinforcing its role as an instructional strategy in deepening word understanding and retention. Similarly, Maswani et al. (2024) demonstrated that the model effectively supports Arabic vocabulary acquisition, particularly for students with limited prior exposure. Beyond language learning, Bowe (2019) highlighted its role in helping students engage with academic vocabulary and improve their understanding of key terms in news literacy.

The students’ improved ability to apply vocabulary in writing, as evidenced by their 69% average on the writing assessment, is congruent with Dazzeo and Rao (2020), who found that students using a digital Frayer Model improved their ability to apply vocabulary by constructing sentences with target words, reinforcing its function in structured, scaffolded vocabulary use in writing. Marty (2016) also reported on the Frayer Model’s impact on intermediate ELLs at the primary level, demonstrating that structured vocabulary instruction helped students construct meaningful sentences, a skill directly assessed in the current study. Monroe and Pendergrass (1997) showed that the Frayer Model improved mathematical vocabulary application, requiring students to explain concepts in writing, further validating its effectiveness in promoting content-specific language use.

Additionally, the findings support the critiques of traditional vocabulary instruction made by Greenwood (2002) and Peters (1974–1975), noting its dependence on rote memorization and dictionary definitions, which results in superficial learning and quick forgetting. In contrast, the Frayer Model’s structured and contextualized approach offers repeated exposure and deeper cognitive engagement, particularly beneficial for ELLs who need substantial interaction with new vocabulary. Given these findings, educators should incorporate the Frayer Model into their curriculum to improve students’ word ownership, vocabulary retention, and ability to use words meaningfully in contexts. Below is a step-by-step guide on how to implement the Frayer Model in reading classes.

  1. Select and introduce vocabulary words. Choose key academic vocabulary from the reading material, such as high-frequency words. Have students rate their familiarity with each word before instruction.
  2. Explain the Frayer Model and its purpose. Provide students with a Frayer Model template and model how to complete the organizer using a sample word, thinking aloud as you go.
  3. Guide students in completing the Frayer Model. Before reading, work as a group to fill in initial definitions, characteristics, and examples/non-examples. During reading, students update their Frayer Models when they encounter words in context. Encourage students to note new characteristics, synonyms, or connotations they discover. Facilitate peer discussion to enhance word understanding. After reading, students refine their entries and apply their vocabulary knowledge. Use follow-up activities such as sentence construction with the new vocabulary, class discussions using the words in context, and writing prompts requiring the use of target vocabulary in new contexts.
  4. Continue to reinforce learning through application. Monitor students’ use of vocabulary in informal and formal discussions and writing assignments over time, encouraging them to apply their new vocabulary.

Understand the Relationship Between Word Ownership and Student Interest

Students had more success with some words than others, improving their word ownership on 15 of the 24 total vocabulary words. Table 4 presents the texts used in each cluster in Unit 5 and the distribution of the related word ownership. Students performed significantly better when tested on Clusters 1 and 2 than on Cluster 3.

Table 4. Distribution of Word Ownership by Text

Text No. of Words Achieved (% of 8 Words)
Cluster 1: The Interlopers & An Interview with the King of Terror 5 of 8 (63%)
Cluster 2: The Babysitter & Beware: Do Not Read this Poem 7 of 8 (88%)
Cluster 3: The Tell-Tale Heart & The Raven 3 of 8 (38%)

The scores may have aligned with the student interest level in the text in which the words were used. Students informally commented that, while they enjoyed and wanted to reread some texts, there were others they did not like, describing them as boring or too slow. Marzano (2004) emphasized that students are more likely to retain and apply new vocabulary when engaging with personally meaningful or stimulating texts. When students find a text uninteresting, they struggle to make meaningful connections with the words, making it more difficult to generate examples/non-examples and use the words effectively in writing. In Cluster 1, where students read The Interlopers and “An Interview with the King of Terror,“ engagement was high—students frequently discussed vocabulary, asked questions, and made predictions. This engagement supports Marzano’s (2004) contention that active participation enhances word retention, as all students in this cluster improved their word ownership of 63% of the vocabulary words. Similarly, Cluster 2, featuring The Babysitter and Beware: Do Not Read This Poem, showed even higher engagement levels, leading to word ownership gains on 88% of the vocabulary words. Students showed strong interest, actively discussing the texts and making additions to their Frayer Models. In contrast, Cluster 3 included The Tell-Tale Heart and The Raven, which students found less engaging and more difficult to comprehend. As a result, discussion participation decreased, and students struggled to complete their Frayer Models, leading to significantly lower gains in word ownership. There was improvement in only 38% of the vocabulary words. Results from this case study suggest a relationship between the interest level of a text and understanding of related vocabulary. Kolota (2024) argued that ELLs require coursework that is both engaging and appropriately challenging to support vocabulary retention and comprehension. If the material is too difficult or fails to capture student interest, vocabulary learning becomes a passive rather than active process.

Include Multiple-Meaning Words

Why students may or may not have gained a deeper knowledge of certain words was examined. Many of the words in Unit 5 were multiple-meaning; students were presented with both definitions but told which definition they would need to know for the unit. There was no evidence students had a more challenging time learning and working with multiple-meaning words than words with only one meaning. All students were able to improve their word ownership on three of the five multiple-meaning words (60%). Practitioners can confidently include multiple-meaning words in vocabulary instruction, knowing that students can learn and retain these words at similar rates to single-meaning words. However, while 60% of multiple-meaning words showed improvement in student understanding, this leaves room for targeted support or differentiated strategies for the remaining 40%. Practitioners might consider incorporating additional practice or context-rich examples for those multiple-meaning words where students show less improvement, ensuring a balanced focus on all vocabulary terms in a unit.

Consider the Text and Context

Fewer students likely learned certain words and not others due to the text in which they were presented and students’ prior knowledge. Research suggests that students are more likely to retain vocabulary when they engage with familiar contexts or personally meaningful words (Graves, 2016; Young, 2005). For example, the only word for which more than one student did not increase understanding was the verb, suspect, from the poem, The Raven. Since the students had difficulty understanding the poem, the meaning of this vocabulary word was possibly lost. Hu and Nation (2000) argued that a reader must know at least 95% of the words in a text to comprehend it fully. New vocabulary may not be fully internalized without sufficient comprehension, which appears to be confirmed in this situation. Conversely, all students reported knowing the word, prophet, from their religious affiliations. Nation (2023) emphasized that vocabulary retention improves when students can connect new words to existing knowledge. Every student in the study scored a three or four for this word on the post-test, demonstrating near or full word ownership.

While there was no word with which all five students struggled, all students could demonstrate full word ownership by writing an original sentence using the word, capable. It is one of the simpler words in the unit. Part of the definition, able, is in the word, and students have prior knowledge of this root word. The other two words with which students were most successful were identification and terror. Some students had some background knowledge of the multiple-meaning word, identification, because of their driver’s license or state identification. Although the meaning discussed in class was that of being able to identify with another person, most students seemed to comprehend this new meaning quickly. The word, terror, was related to the topic of fear for Unit 5 and was used often in other contexts, not exclusively during vocabulary discussions. This repeated exposure to the word likely helped students attain word ownership.

An important practitioner implication here is that students’ familiarity with a text and prior associations with a word can strongly impact vocabulary acquisition (Graves, 2016; Hoey, 2005; Marzano, 2004; Webb & Nation, 2017). Educators might focus on introducing challenging vocabulary within accessible, well-understood contexts or supplement more difficult texts with explicit discussions and contextual examples of keywords. Additionally, leveraging students’ pre-existing knowledge and cultural connections to certain terms, like prophet, can enhance vocabulary learning and foster deeper connections with new material.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that must be considered. First, only five participants took part in the case study over one semester in a single classroom. While the strength of a case study lies in its detailed exploration of a particular case, the small sample size limits broad practical and statistical generalizations. Future research should investigate larger, more representative samples of ELL students across multiple secondary classrooms or schools to enhance the study’s applicability and validity.

Second, the Frayer Model does not explicitly address collocation, a key component of vocabulary acquisition. Collocations—words frequently appearing together in natural language use—reflect how vocabulary is used in context rather than in isolation. “Knowing a word involves knowing what words it typically occurs with” (Nation, 2001, p. 56). According to Lewis (2012), “collocation has an important role to play in the creation of meaning” (p. 82). While the Frayer Model supports word meaning, characteristics, and usage examples, it does not focus on how words commonly co-occur in natural language use, which could limit students’ ability to use newly learned vocabulary appropriately and productively in real-world contexts.

Finally, the teacher chooses the texts students read, which may not match student interests, affecting engagement and vocabulary retention. When students lack interest, their motivation and ownership of their learning may decrease (Howard, 2017). In contrast, when students can choose (Glasser, 1998), they may select texts that captivate them, enhancing their learning. Future research could explore student-selected texts or use interest surveys to align readings with students’ preferences, boosting engagement and potentially improving vocabulary retention.

Conclusion

The results of this study provide compelling evidence that the Frayer Model is an effective tool for enhancing vocabulary acquisition and developing word ownership among secondary English learners. The improvement in pre- and post-test scores, averaging 57%, demonstrates that structured, explicit vocabulary instruction positively impacts student learning. Additionally, the writing assessment results, where students achieved an average score of 69%, indicate that many could transition from receptive to productive vocabulary use, reinforcing the value of the Frayer Model in fostering full word ownership.

ELLs must actively participate in learning to develop vocabulary efficiently and meaningfully (Camarena, 2009). They need opportunities to hear, see, write, and speak new words in different contexts (Ngqeleni & Matiso, 2022). The Frayer Model facilitates this process by allowing students to interact with vocabulary words and texts repeatedly over an extended period, ensuring deeper engagement and retention (Nation, 2015). The results of this study confirm that engaging vocabulary strategies—such as the Frayer Model—help bridge the gap between academic language and the background knowledge students bring to the classroom (Young, 2005).

Given ELLs’ persistent challenges in vocabulary acquisition, these findings have practical implications for curriculum design and pedagogy. The success of the Frayer Model suggests that similar scaffolded, visual, and interactive approaches could be adapted and expanded across different grade levels and subject areas. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on best practices in vocabulary teaching techniques by reinforcing the connection between explicit vocabulary instruction and meaningful language use. Used specifically for building vocabulary and developing word ownership, the Frayer Model is an effective tool for Level 3 (CEFR B1) ELL students.

About the Authors

Krista Hulderman is an English teacher at Sheyenne High School in North Dakota. Her research focuses on vocabulary acquisition, literacy strategies for diverse learners, and fostering critical thinking through language arts. ORCID ID: 0009-0005-7834-1483

Justin J. Wageman is a professor in the School of Education at North Dakota State University. A former K–12 Spanish and EFL teacher, his research and teaching interests include classroom management, second language teaching and learning, educational psychology, and classroom assessment. ORCID ID: 0009-0004-4045-5584

Stacy Duffield is a professor and the director of the Office of Teaching and Learning at North Dakota State University. She facilitates professional development for university instructors and K–12 educators. Additionally, she teaches graduate and undergraduate teacher preparation coursework and works with campus collaborators to carry out educational grants, research, and evaluation. Her main research interests include teaching and learning, teacher preparation, and teacher education assessment. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8547-8630

James Nyachwaya is a professor in the School of Education and the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. His research interests include the process and outcome of student interactions during collaborative learning activities, students’ conceptual understanding of science concepts, and students’ understanding of academic language and language fluency. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3355-6497

To Cite this Article

Hulderman, K., Wageman, J. J., Duffield, S., & Nyachwaya, J. (2025). The effect of the Frayer model on secondary English learner vocabulary acquisition. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(1). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113a5

References

Allen, J. (1999). Words, words, words. Stenhouse Publishers.

Allen, J. (2007). Inside words. Stenhouse Publishers.

Arter, J. A., & Chappuis, J. (2006). Creating and recognizing quality rubrics. Educational Testing Service.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

August, D., Uccelli, P., Artzi, L., Barr, C., & Francis, D. J. (2020). English learners’ acquisition of academic vocabulary: Instruction matters, but so do word characteristics. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3) 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.323

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (No. NCEE 2014-4012). U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2015105.pdf

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Birch, B. (2023). Building a convergent model of the interlanguage reading system. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning (pp. 370–383). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003106609

Bowe, B. J. (2019). Separating real from fake: Building news literacy with the Frayer Model. Communication Teacher, 33(4), 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2019.1575971

Camarena, M. (2009). The culture of teaching ELL students successfully: A two-way bilingual (ED504294). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504294.pdf

Carr, N. T. (2011). Designing and analyzing language tests. Oxford University Press.

Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford University Press.

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe Publishing. https://www.coe.int/lang-cefr

Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson.

Dazzeo, R., & Rao, K. (2020). Digital Frayer Model: Supporting vocabulary acquisition with technology and UDL. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920911951

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024

Frayer, D. A., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. G. (1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery (Technical Report No. 16). Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice Theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. HarperCollins Publishers.

Graves, M. F. (2016). The vocabulary book: Learning and Instruction (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Greene, J. W., & Coxhead, A. (2015). Academic vocabulary for middle school students. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Greenwood, S. C. (2002). Making words matter: Vocabulary study in the content areas. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 75(5), 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650209603951

Hashimoto, B., & Egbert, J. (2019). More than frequency? Exploring predictors of word difficulty for second language learners. Language Learning, 69(4), 839–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12353

Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.

Howard, R. M. (2017). ELLs’ perceptions of reading. Reading Improvement, 54(1), 19–31.

Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/item/43

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Kaya, J. (2023). Re-examining the importance of vocabulary learning strategies for first language English speakers. English in Education, 57(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2023.2190350

Kolota, J. (2024). Empowering EAL learners in secondary schools: A practical resource to support the language development of multilingual learners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003386810

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.

Lewis, M. (2012). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Cengage Learning.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2021). How languages are learned (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

MacGregor, D., Chapman, M., & Cook, H. G. (2023). Linking scores from WIDA MODEL online to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (No. RR-2023-2). WIDA, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison. https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Linking-Scores-from-WIDA-MODEL-Online-to-CEFR.pdf

Marty, J. (2016). Vocabulary instruction: The effectiveness of the Frayer Model for Level 2 and 3 ELLs in first through third grade (Publication No. 10037645) [Master’s thesis, Western Illinois University]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. ASCD.

Maswani, Alawiyah, N. L., & Safira. (2024). The Frayer Model effectiveness in the Arabic vocabulary development for students in Madrasah. An Nabighoh, 26(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.32332/annabighoh.v26i1.17-30

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Moeller, A. J., Ketsman, O., & Masmaliyeva, L. (2009). The essentials of vocabulary teaching: From theory to practice. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/171/

Monroe, E. E., & Pendergrass, M. R. (1997). Effects of mathematical vocabulary instruction on fourth grade students. Reading Improvement, 34, 120–132.

Moore, D. W., Short, D. J., Smith, M. W., & Tatum, A. W. (2006). Hampton-Brown edge: Reading, writing, & language. National Geographic School Publishing.

Motlagh, H. S., Khafaie, H., Arastoo, A. A., Cheraghi, M., & Khafaie, M. A. (2020). Application of social network in traditional sciences education on the vocabulary acquisition of secondary English learner students. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 3071–3085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10108-4

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759

Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 581–595). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nation, I. S. P. (2015). Principles guiding vocabulary learning through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1), 136–145. http://doi.org/10125/66705

Nation, P. (2022). Translanguaging and vocabulary learning. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 26(3). https://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume26/ej103/ej103a24

Nation, P. (2023). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning (pp. 397–408). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003106609-33

Ngqeleni, S., & Matiso, H. M. (2022). Exploring vocabulary knowledge as a strategy to enhance English first additional language in the post COVID-19 era. E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 3(11), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.2022SP3119

Northrop, L., & Andrei, E. (2019). More than just word of the day: Vocabulary apps for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 72(5), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1773

Pais Marden, M., & Herrington, J. (2024). The scaffolding role of native speaker mentors in an online community of foreign language learners. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 32(4), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2024.2359912

Panjaitan, N. B., & Sihotang, H. M. (2020). A comparative study between Frayer Model and Concept Mapping Strategy to enhance students’ vocabulary acquisition. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 5(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.35974/acuity.v5i1.2221

Peters, C. W. (1974–1975). A comparison between the Frayer Model of concept attainment and the textbook approach to concept attainment (abstract). Reading Research Quarterly, 10(2), 252–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/747186

Popham, W. J. (2020). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (9th ed.). Pearson.

Rekrut, M. D. (1996). Effective vocabulary instruction. High School Journal, 80(1), 66–74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40364693

Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483

Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921

Sheng, Z., Sheng, Y., & Anderson, C. J. (2011). Dropping out of school among ELL students:
Implications to schools and teacher education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(3), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2010.538755

Snow, M. A. (2023). Content-based instruction: Innovations and challenges. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning (pp. 148–160). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003106609-12

Taylor, R. (2007). Improving reading, writing, and content learning for students in grades 4-12. Corwin Press.

Téllez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (Eds.). (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language learners. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/663301

Tran, A. (2006). An approach to basic-vocabulary development for English-language learners. Reading Improvement, 43(3), 157–162.

Valančiauskienė, A. (2023). Dictionaries and machine translation: What do learners of Lithuanian as a foreign language choose? Vilnius University Open Series, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.15388/Terp_taikamosios_kalboteros_baru.2023.10

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wallace, C. (2008). Vocabulary: The key to teaching English language learners to read. Education Digest, 73(9), 36–39.

Walqui, A. (2000). Access and engagement: Program design and instructional approaches for immigrant students in secondary school. Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.

Waring, R. (2023). Extensive reading. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning (pp. 384–394). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003106609-31

Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.

Westby, C. (2024). Frayer Model for vocabulary development. Word of Mouth, 35(3), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/10483950231211841d

Wilks, C., & Meara, P. (2002). Untangling word webs: Graph theory and the notion of density in second language word association networks. Second Language Research, 18(4), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr203oa

Yao, L. (2020). Cognitive process of English learners in vocabulary learning. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, 29(2), 878–884. https://doi.org/10.24205/03276716.2020.325

Young, E. (2005). The language of science, the language of students: Bridging the gap with engaged learning vocabulary strategies. Science Activities, 42(2), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.42.2.12-17

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.
Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.