LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.

Making	  Graphic	
  Organizers	  of	  Graph	
  Vocabulary	
  Michael T. Sullivan
This study investigated the use of a modified version of the Frayer model as graphic organizer toimprove the vocabulary comprehension of Japanese university students. Students were separated
into test and control groups. Pre- and posttests on graph vocabulary comprehension wereadministered to both groups. The test group alone used model cards with the modified framework,
but both groups completed the assigned graph exercises. A questionnaire was then administered toassess student feelings of the modified model’s usefulness. Although results showed improvement inboth groups, the test group showed a larger gain in mean scores, and they found the model helpfulin graph vocabulary comprehension. Findings suggest the modified Frayer model has potential tohelp students better understand graph vocabulary.
日本人大学生による語彙の理解を高めるためのグラフィックオーガナイザーとして、修正したFrayer modelを使用することについて調査した。学生を試験群・対照群に分け、両群に対し事前と事後にグ ラフ用語の理解度を測定するテストを実施した。両群は指定されたグラフ演習を行ったが、試験群の 学生だけが修正された枠組みに従ってモデルカードを使用した。演習後、修正モデルの有効性に対す る学生の反応を調べるためにアンケートを実施した。両群ともに理解度の向上が認められたが、試験 群の平均値がより大きく上昇し、学生は、グラフ用語を理解するのに本モデルの使用が有効であると 感じていた。これらの結果から、修正したFrayer
modelの使用によって、グラフ用語に対する学生の 理解を高められる可能性が示唆される 。
This paper came about in part from my talk at the 20th Anniversary Conference, Tokyo in an attempt to develop
a student-generated approach that would improve learner comprehension of graph vocabulary. In my short talk,I introduced a word card based on the original Frayer model for vocabulary acquisition, providing participants
with reasons why the model as graphic organizer was developed, and a step-by-step procedure on how to create
and use the model effectively in class. As in my talk, I start this paper by defining a graphic organizer, by
explaining the original Frayer model word card and why it should be corrected, and by introducing a modified
Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201538

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
version of the Frayer model. This is followed by an outline of my study which sets out to determine theusefulness of my version of the Frayer model word card for learners. Finally, I draw some conclusions from thestudy, reflect on the model’s relevance to learner development and then go over how use of the model has
impacted classes since the conference talk.

Introduction
A graphic organizer is defined as a two-dimensional visual framework that presents conceptual relationships(Rice, 1994; Vaughan, Vos, & Schumm, 2007). The basic structure of an organizer has boxes or circles, or both,with connecting lines that can visually represent the ways in which ideas link with one another and how words
can be classified and described.
The Frayer model word card is one type of graphic organizer. It assists students in describing vocabulary indetail. The model (see Figure 1) is a large square made up of four quadrants with a circle in the middle. Insideeach quadrant is a category by which the given word can be described (Greenwood, 2002; Nessel & Graham,2007), and these categories help explain which characteristics relate and do not relate to a concept (Frayer,
Frederick, & Klausmeier, 1969).

Relevant Attributes- measured in grams- property of all matter- an object’s weight is different from its mass

Irrelevant Attributes- static forces- projectile motion

ExampleAn American penny has a mass of 2.50 grams

Non-Example
A carton of milk contains 1 liter (volume, notmass)

Figure 1. Example of original Frayer model.

When used in the original model, the irrelevant attributes and non-examples of a math concept (such as yard) ora social studies concept (such as states’ rights) were found to be as useful for student comprehension as theterm’s relevant attributes and examples (Monroe & Pendergrass, 1997; Peters, 1974). However, could the sameSpecial Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201539

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
model apply to abstract vocabulary used to describe graphs, such as slightly? I assumed that the model might
not work because many possible non-examples and irrelevant attributes of a graph word could exist—for
example, the representation of the concept slightly may vary based on perception (Wiemer-Hastings & Xu,
2005)—and therefore, the model would not necessarily promote a clearer, deeper understanding of the targeted
graph vocabulary. It seemed that the original Frayer model may be somewhat incompatible with abstract graphterms, and so a modified form was deemed more appropriate.

The Study
The purpose for developing an alternative graphic organizer based on the original Frayer model was to find an
effective way of helping students comprehend abstract graph vocabulary. In the modified version of the Frayer
model, new headings were assigned to each of the four quadrants. That is, it retains the original box-likestructure of the original, with a circle in the middle, but the categories in each box differ (see Figure 2).

Definition (in own words)

Synonym/Antonym

Visual Representation

Example Sentence (in own words)

Figure 2. Example of graphic organizer based on original Frayer model.

Research Questions
1.

What effect would this modified graphic organizer based on the original Frayer model have on
student comprehension of graph vocabulary?

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201540

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
2.

Would the students find this modified version of the Frayer model useful?

Context
The study was conducted in two compulsory English Technical Writing classes for first-year Masters Chemistry
students at a university in western Japan. The students met once a week for 90 minutes. Thirty-six students
participated in the study and were divided equally into two classes (based on pre- existing class allocations) atroughly the same, relatively low English proficiency level. The study took place near the end of the second halfof the term during the two-week unit on describing graphs.

Procedure
For the purposes of the study, students were divided into two groups: the test group and the control group.
Twenty graph vocabulary items (Figure 3) were chosen for the study. The targeted words were selected because
they were required terms for the final exam and were neither used nor discussed in any previous units in the
textbook (Mann & Wever, 2007). All vocabulary items were chosen to have the same relative language burden
for students (see Nation, 2006). One way to assure this is to restrict the words by grammatical category(Dodigovic, 2013), so verbs and adverbs were chosen as they represented the majority of words to be tested.
Figure 3. List of graph vocabulary words
Both the control group and the test group were given the same multiple-choice test on the targeted words before

and after the graph unit (see Appendix). Between these test sessions, the instructor gave both groups identicalgraph description exercises to learn the graph vocabulary. In addition, both groups were given the time andencouragement to study the targeted vocabulary.

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201541

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
After the pretest, each student in the test group was given 20 word cards based on the new version of the Frayer
model, on each of which was written one of the targeted graph terms. These students were instructed to fill out
the cards. They were also encouraged to write L1 equivalents on the cards (in the Definition quadrant), as it
would support a form-meaning link between the L2 word and the L1 word already present in memory (Nation,2001). Once completed, the cards were examined by the instructor to check that all quadrants were filled. Upon
examination, all test group students had written information in each quadrant. However, some only wrote
single-word entries for three of the four quadrants (excluding visual representation), while others provided
more details (e.g. short lists). For each graph exercise (e.g. a pair work graph description exercise using no
numbers) over the course of the unit, the students were asked to refer to their own model cards to help themdescribe/explain the graph data.
At the end of the unit, a multiple choice posttest was administered to both groups. The questions on the posttest
were identical to those on the pretest. Afterwards, a questionnaire was distributed to all test group students todetermine if they felt the model cards were useful.

Results
Research Question One
Table 1 shows the results of the pre- and posttests of 36 test and control group students.
Table 1 Results of Pre- and Posttests Evaluating Graph Vocabulary Comprehension
Note. Tests were on 20 multiple-choice vocabulary items. The maximum score for each test was 20.
According to the results of paired sample (2-tailed) t tests, carried out to judge whether the students improved

their comprehension with or without the new version of the Frayer model, a statistical significant change
Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201542

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
between the pre- to posttest scores for both the control group and the test group resulted: t(17) = -5.958, p < .05
for the control group and t(17) = -6.882, p < .05 for the test group.
Although the test group’s pretest and posttest mean scores were lower than those of the control group, there wasa larger gain in mean score on the posttests by the test group than by the control group. This is further evident
after examining the test data in histograms (Figures 4 and 5), which show a greater positive shift in test scoresfor most of the students in the test group compared to the control group.

Figure 4.
Pretest scores of test and control groups (n = 18).

Figure 5.
Posttest scores of test and control groups (n = 18).

As for the standard deviation of both groups, the test group experienced a greater deviation from the averagescore on the posttest than the control group, implying that some students in the test group scored much better orworse than the average. In fact, two-thirds of the test group students—the very students who wrote many moredetails than the others in each of the four card quadrants—made significant improvement gains (50% or higher)
on their test scores, while the rest made smaller increases or none at all (see Table 2).
As for the standard deviation of both groups, the test group experienced a greater deviation from the averagescore on the posttest than the control group, implying that some students in the test group scored much better orSpecial Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201543

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
worse than the average. In fact, two-thirds of the test group students—the very students who wrote many moredetails than the others in each of the four card quadrants—made significant improvement gains (50% or higher)
on their test scores, while the rest made smaller increases or none at all (see Table 2).
Table 2
Results of Individual Test Group Pre- and Posttest Scores

Research Question Two
Table 3 shows the results of a two-part student feedback questionnaire, completed by test group students only atthe end of the graph description unit. In answer to the first question, all students in the group affirmed they had
a better understanding of the vocabulary. As for the second part, all feedback on card use was positive, mainly
focusing on the card’s usefulness in aiding comprehension and recall of the graph vocabulary.

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201544

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
Table 3
Questionnaire Feedback from Test Group on the use of new model cards
Question
Yes
No
1.
18
0
Do you have a better understanding of the
vocabulary using the cards?
2.
Sample Feedback:Write feedback on the use of the graph• Definition and illustration are useful for me
cards.
• Graph cards (have) many words, so I can
explain graph details• I can also understand synonyms• I understand meaning of graph vocabulary• Easy to remember using graph cards• I can study not only definitions (of the word)
but also synonyms

Discussion
Results from this study provided evidence to help answer the two research questions. The first question asked
what effect this modified graphic organizer based on the Frayer model would have on the learner’s
understanding of the graph vocabulary. Results revealed that based on posttest mean scores, the test group using
this modified version based on the Frayer model with graph-related textbook exercises did not do better incomprehending concepts than the textbook-focused control group. Yet, in considering the size of the
improvement between the two groups, the test group showed slightly more improvement in mean score than thecontrol group, lending (partial, at least) support to Peters’ (1974) claim that the Frayer model helps facilitate theunderstanding of concepts (p. 108).
The second research question asked if the students found the modified version of the model to be useful. The
students responded positively to the modified graphic organizer based on the Frayer model and appreciated its
usefulness in deepening their knowledge of the vocabulary, and this matched teacher expectations. What may
have accounted for this positive feedback was that each student’s set of model cards was developed by thestudent him- or herself, and that they were encouraged to use, share, and discuss card information with otherstudents while doing graph-related activities in class.

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201545

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.

Conclusion
The findings in this study suggest that the use of my alternative graphic organizer based on the Frayer model tohelp students themselves understand graph vocabulary has potential. In studying this modified version of themodel’s usefulness to students and its effect on their comprehension, it is fair to conclude that (a) the test groupstudents found the modified version of the Frayer model useful, largely because this model aided them inarranging, describing and explaining, and remembering a great deal of known and new lexical information
about each graph word, that (b) the student group using the cards made relatively greater improvement in theircomprehension of the graph vocabulary than the group using textbook exercises alone, and that (c) the test
group students who made the greatest improvement on the posttests had written the most information in eachquadrant on their word cards.
Upon reflection, I feel the model presented in this study had relevance to the learner development group andconference. Despite the criticism that the model is laborious and a large use of student time (Greenwood, 2002),
the model is learner-generated and learner-directed. The number of details the students write on each of theirown cards depends on student input and interest; the teacher merely serves to give feedback on what they havewritten and provide activities that encourage the use of the model cards. Second, in line with the theme of theLD20conference, the model presented a somewhat different perspective or way of thinking—in this case, on
vocabulary comprehension. This alternative graphic organizer based on the Frayer model is unlike a dictionaryor simple word card entry, as it encourages students to efficiently compile a great deal of appropriate,
meaningful and detailed information about a (graph) term on a single card.

Post Script
Since presenting this study at the LD20 conference, my modified graphic organizer based on the original Frayer
model has continued to positively impact on student comprehension of the targeted graph vocabulary. My
current students are required to give a presentation (general or technical) using graphs, and so, to better
understand graph language, these cards have been both created and used by the students. What I have found, as

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201546

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
before, is that with the help of the cards, all of the students improved in graph-related exercises in the graphdescription unit and in their explanations of the graphs in their own presentations at the end of the class term.
Several students have reported to me that although it took time for them to write out details on the graph model
cards for themselves the cards have been useful in more fully comprehending the targeted vocabulary. Moving
forward, I plan to keep using these cards as self-study aids for students to help them remain engaged in thelearning process. I would further encourage the students to create other categories if they wish in order to better
understand the key terms.
References
Dodigovic, M. (2013). Vocabulary learning with electronic flashcards: Teacher design vs. student design. Voicesin Asia Journal 2013, 1, 15-33.
Frayer, D. A., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing on the concept mastery(Technical Report No. 16). Madison: University of Wisconsin Research and Development Center for
Cognitive Learning.
Greenwood, S. (2002). Making words matter: Vocabulary study in the content areas. The Clearing House, 75,
258-263.
Mann, D., & Wever, S. (2007). Advanced technical writing in English. Osaka: Nippon Steel & Sumikin
Intercom.
Monroe, E. E., & Pendergrass, M. (1997). Effects of mathematical vocabulary instruction on fourth gradestudents. Reading Improvement, 34(3), 120-132.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006) Vocabulary: Second language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language andlinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 448-454). Oxford: Elsevier.
Nessel, D., & Graham, J. (2007). Thinking strategies for student achievement: Improving learning across thecurriculum, K-12 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201547

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
Peters, C. (1974). A comparison between the Frayer model of concept attainment and the textbook approach ofconcept attainment. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 252-254.
Rice, G. (1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research. Reading Psychology 15, 39-67. Vaughan,S., Vos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive
Science 29, 719-736.

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201548

LD20 Exploring Learning Development: Practices, Pedagogies, Puzzles and Research.
Appendix
Graph Vocabulary Comprehension Test
Graph Vocabulary Test Name: _____________________ Class #:____ Score: _____
Task: The following 20 words are used in describing graphs. For each of the words below, circle the definition that best describes its
meaning.
1. Swiftly
11. Crash
a. to move slowly
a. to decrease slowly
b. to move quickly
b. to move up and downc. to move at a constant ratec. to decrease sharply
d. None of the above
d. None of the above
2. Fluctuate
12. Soara. to move slowly
a. to increase little by little
b. to move up and down
b. to decrease sharply
c. to move quickly
c. to increase sharply
d. None of the above
d. None of the above
3. Level off
13. Flatten out
a. to move slowly
a. to move up and down continuously
b. to move up and down continuously
b. to go up slowly
c. to move quickly upward
c. to go down quickly
d. None of the above
d. None of the above
4. Substantially
14. Dramaticallya. to make a very large change
a. to make a very large change
b. to make a large change
b. to make a large change
c. to make a small change
c. to make a small change
d. None of the above
d. None of the above
5. Abruptly
15. Shoot up
a. to move sharply
a. to increase little by little
b. to move slowly
b. to increase sharply
c. to move at a regular pacec. to increase then decreased. None of the above
d. None of the above
6. Plunge
16. Moderately
a. to decrease sharply
a. to make a very large change
b. to increase sharply
b. to make a large change
c. to decrease little by little
c. to make a small change
d. None of the above
d. None of the above
7. Steadily
17. Climb
a. to move up and down
a. to go down slowly
b. to move quickly
b. to go up
c. to move slowly
c. c. to move up and downd. None of the above
d. None of the above
8. Considerably
18. Graduallya. to make a very large change
a. to move sharply
b. to make a small change
b. to move slowly
c. to make a large chargec. to move suddenly
d. None of the above
d. None of the above
9. Slightly
19. Significantly
a. to make a small change
a. to make a very small change
b. to make a large change
b. to make a very large change
c. to make a very large change
c. to make a large change
d. None of the above
d. None of the above
10. Bounce back20. Collapse
a. to increase slowly
a. to decrease sharply
b. to move sharply
b. to move up and downc. to decrease sharply
c. to decrease slowly
d. None of the above
d. None of the above“A different version of this article first appears in JALT2013 Conference Proceedings, published by the Japan Association for
Language Teaching.”

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 22, Issue 2 October 201549