10.30495/

The Frayer Model Effectiveness int he LSP Vocabulary Development: The Case of English for Iranian Computer Sciences Majors

PDF
  • Mahmoud Jafarie1,
  • Hossein Heidari Tabrizi*1,
  1. English Department, Islamic Azad University Isfahan (Khorasgan) BranchIsfahan, Iran

Received: 2022-05-30

Revised: 2022-06-30

Accepted: 2022-07-26

Published in Issue 2022-12-01

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Jafarie, M., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2022). The Frayer Model Effectiveness int he LSP Vocabulary Development: The Case of English for Iranian Computer Sciences Majors. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 1(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.30495/
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 188

Abstract

This study was intended to investigate the application of the Frayer model to teaching vocabulary to language for specific
purposes students. It employed quasi-experimental control group posttest-only design. As its requirement, two intact classes of
Iranian undergraduate computer sciences majors—having taken language for specific purposes course—were selected in a
convenience sampling fashion (#62 students). They were assigned to two groups: control and experimental. In a twelve-week
treatment period, the experimental group was taught some words present in content area texts using the Frayer model charts
along with other words using textbook procedure. To be more precise, they were trained how to organize their understanding of
words graphically—the words chosen from their English for specific purposes textbook, i.e., English for computer engineering.
In contrast to the experimental group, the control group received instruction in vocabulary learning following just textbook
procedure. At the end of the term, an identical vocabulary achievement posttest was administered to both groups. The probable
effectiveness of the Frayer model application in learning vocabulary words was statistically computed through independent
samples t-test procedure. The results showed that Frayer model had significantly affected the experimental English for specific
purposes students’ vocabulary gain. As a result, they outperformed the normal English for specific purposes students in
vocabulary learning. It is implied that the practitioners in this area can transgress the textual mode routines of vocabulary
learning: they can take advantages of graphically organizing tools such as the Frayer model for the enhancement of vocabulary
learning

Keywords

  • English for Specific Purposes, Frayer model, Graphic Organizer, Language for Specific Purposes, Vocabulary Learning
PDF

References

  1. Allen, V. F. (1983). Techniques in teaching vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Anderson, R. C. & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension
  3. and teaching (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  4. Anderson, R. & Nagy, W. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson
  5. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 2) (pp. 690–724). New York: Longman.
  6. Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for
  7. teaching children to read. Washington, DC: The National Institute for Literacy.
  8. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction.
  9. New York: Guilford Press.
  10. Bos, C., & Anders, P. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning
  11. and reading comprehension of junior high learning-disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly,
  12. (1), 31–42.
  13. Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (2nd Ed.). Newark, De: International
  14. Reading Association.
  15. Buran, A. & Filyukov, A. (2015). Mind mapping technique in language learning. Procedia - Social and
  16. Behavioral Sciences, 206, 215 – 218.
  17. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
  18. Cohen, V. & Cowen, J. (2007). Literacy for children in an information age: Teaching reading, writing,
  19. and thinking. Cengage Learning.
  20. Cronbach, L. J. (1942). Measuring knowledge of precise word meaning. The Journal of Educational
  21. Research, 36(7), 528–534 .
  22. Dazzeo, R. & Rao, K. (2020). Digital Frayer model: Supporting vocabulary acquisition with technology
  23. and UDL. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(1), 34–42.
  24. Decarrico, J. S. (2001). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English
  25. as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.). London: Thomson Learning.
  26. Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitive
  27. mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
  28. Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language
  29. acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299-307.
  30. Ghezelseflou, M. & Seyyedrezaei, S. H. (2015). The effect of teaching vocabulary through collocations
  31. on the vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL students. Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics,
  32. (1), 9-16.
  33. Graves, M. (1985). A word is a word…Or is it? New York: Scholastic.
  34. Greenwood, S. (2002). Making words matter: Vocabulary study in the content areas. The Clearing
  35. House, 75(5), 258-263.
  36. Gu, Y. (2010). Learning strategies for vocabulary development. Reflections on English Language
  37. Teaching, 9(2), 105-118.
  38. Hamada, L. (2014). Math vocabulary instruction in an inclusive classroom 1 direct instruction and the
  39. Frayer model: Effects on mathematics achievement in an inclusive classroom. (Unpublished master
  40. thesis). Southwest State University Marshall, Minnesota.
  41. Hatch, E. & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. New York: Cambridge
  42. University Press.
  43. Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language
  44. vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 207-223.
  45. İlter, İ. (2015). The investigation of the effects of Frayer model on vocabulary knowledge in social
  46. studies. Elementary Education Online, 14(3), 106-112.
  47. Ishizuka, H. (2000). Goichishikino fukasato speakingnouryokuno soukan [Correlations between depth
  48. of vocabulary knowledge and speaking ability]. STEP Bulletin, 12, 13-25.
  49. Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary
  50. acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 285-299.
  51. Lane, H & Allen, S. A. (2010). The vocabulary-rich classroom: Modeling sophisticated word use to
  52. promote word consciousness and vocabulary growth. The Reading Teacher 63(5), 362-370.
  53. DOI:10.1598/RT.63.5.2
  54. Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC
  55. Journal, 25(2), 21-33.
  56. Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength and computer
  57. adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399-436.
  58. Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabulary: Effects of
  59. language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365-391.
  60. Lawson, M. J. & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary learning strategies of foreign language students.
  61. Language learning, 46(1), 101-135.
  62. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. London: Language
  63. Teaching Publications.
  64. Loretta. F. (2008). The image of Daniel: An ancient graphic organizer. Journal of Research on Christian
  65. Education, 17(2), 217-224.
  66. Monroe, E. E. & Pendergrass, M. (1997). Effects of mathematical vocabulary instruction on fourth grade
  67. students. Reading Improvement, 34(3), 120-132.
  68. Nahampun, E. E. (2014). The effect of using Frayer model on students’ vocabulary mastery. Journal of
  69. Applied Linguistics of FBS Unimed, 3(1), 22-36.
  70. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
  71. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
  72. Press.
  73. Nessel, D. & Graham, J. (2007). Thinking strategies for student achievement: Improving learning across
  74. the curriculum, K-12 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  75. O’Donnell, A. M. (1993). Searching for information in knowledge maps and texts. Contemporary
  76. Educational Psychology, 18, 222-239 .
  77. Palmer, J., Boon, R. T., & Spencer, V. G. (2014). Effects of concept mapping instruction on the
  78. vocabulary acquisition skills of seventh graders with mild disabilities: A replication study. Reading
  79. & Writing Quarterly, 30(2), 165–182.
  80. Pang, Y. (2013). Graphic organizers and other visual strategies to improve young ELL’s reading
  81. comprehension. New England Reading Association Journal, 48(2), 52-58.
  82. Pavicic, T. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon:
  83. Cromwell .
  84. The Frayer Model Effectiveness in the LSP Vocabulary Development …
  85. Peters, C. (1974). A comparison between the Frayer model of concept attainment and the textbook
  86. approach of concept attainment. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(2), 252-254.
  87. Putra, N. S. P., Padmadewi, N.N., & Budiarta, L. G. R. (2022). The effect of Mindmeister in teaching
  88. English vocabulary to young learner. International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and
  89. Social Science, 5(1), 88-98.
  90. Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading
  91. comprehension: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513-536.
  92. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  93. Richards, J. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77-89.
  94. Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in middle school. New York: Scholastic.
  95. Ropič, M. & Aberšek, M. (2012). Web graphic organizers as an advanced strategy for teaching science
  96. textbook reading comprehension. Problems of Education 21st Century, 41, 87-99.
  97. Rott, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental
  98. vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4),
  99. –619.
  100. Sam, D. P. & Rajan, P. (2013). Using graphic organizers to improve reading comprehension skills for
  101. the middle school ESL students. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 155-170.
  102. Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
  103. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–
  104. . New York: Cambridge University Press.
  105. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  106. Schwartz, R. M. & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Concept of definition: A key to improving students’
  107. vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 39(2), 198-205.
  108. Sullivan, M. T. (2014). Using adapted Frayer model as graphic organizer for graph vocabulary. In N.
  109. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 55-83). Tokyo: JALT.
  110. Teichroew, F. J. (1982). Receptive versus productive vocabulary: A survey. Interlanguage Studies
  111. Bulletin, 6(2), 5–33.
  112. Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at
  113. risk (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
  114. Wang, X. & Dostal, J. (2018). Using a mind map to learn English vocabulary. 2
  115. nd International
  116. Conference on Education and E-Learning, Bali, Indonesia.
  117. Wesche, M. & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus
  118. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.
  119. Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
  120. Yousefkhani, M., Ayat, N., & Farrahi, A. (2007). English for computer engineering. Tehran: PNU
  121. Publications.