Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue

In 1969, amid a wave of educational innovation at the tail end of two decades of rapid change across the world, Frederick and Dorothy Frayer and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin's Center for Education Research introduced a groundbreaking approach that would quietly transform how students learn concepts across disciplines. Together with Bloom’s Taxonomy, the Frayer Model would continue to stoke fires of curiosity among literacy researchers. I recall the words “Frayer Model” coming up unbidden semester after semester during area group meetings involving the reading faculty at Sac State throughout my 17 years of work there starting in 1997.

The Frayer Model wasn't just another run-of-the-mill classroom tool; it was a deliberate response to a challenge in education: the disconnect between "labeling concepts, defining those concepts, understanding the relationships among concepts, and how to apply concepts [emphasis added]" (Vocabulary Luau, 2020). These verbs echo the three lower-order thinking skills in Bloom: Knowledge (labeling and defining), comprehension (understanding), and, well, applying. The collective aspiration to advance student learning beyond the rote memory regime of the first half of the century is on full display in Frayer research artifacts.

The Frayer Model in Action

What makes this deceptively simple graphic organizer so powerful? At its core lies a four-quadrant structure surrounding a central concept depicted in a circle: definition, characteristics, examples, and non-examples. But this visual framework does far more than organize information—it evokes activity that systematically builds conceptual understanding through multiple cognitive pathways. In fact, as we shall see, neuroscientists have mapped these pathways in the brain itself. It is a challenge to find fault with this model.

Think of Plato’s bed. Definition: A bed is a (the “is a” relationship inherent in the act of defining) place for sleeping. In the center circle, I write “place for sleeping the night through.” What are characteristics of a bed? Large rectangular platform, firm surface, usually sits on the floor of a “bedroom,” can be raised from the floor, accessorized with pillows and blankets. Examples of beds are bunkbeds, king beds, futons, water beds. Non-examples are hammocks, chaise lounges).

Enter AI. Let’s see what Claude3.7 can do. This task is one where bots outshine us—also, can go crazy with wild fantasy if prompting isn’t really well done. I’m sure I’m going to be embarrassed by my scant knowledge of beds:

Claude:

I'd be happy to help expand the Frayer Model example for "place for sleeping the night through" by providing more examples and non-examples based on web research.

DEFINITION

• A designated furniture item designed for extended horizontal rest during nighttime hours

• A dedicated surface that supports comfortable prolonged sleep for an entire night

• A piece of furniture specifically created to facilitate complete sleep cycles

• CHARACTERISTICS

  • Large rectangular platform

  • Firm surface that provides body support

  • Sits on the floor of a "bedroom"

  • Accessorized with pillows and blankets

  • Typically elevated off the ground

  • Designed for horizontal positioning of the body

  • Provides consistent support for extended periods (6-8 hours)

  • Usually accommodates one or more people

EXAMPLES

• Bunkbeds

• King beds

• Queen beds

• Twin beds

• Futons (when laid flat)

• Water beds

• Murphy beds (wall beds)

• Platform beds

• Adjustable beds

• Trundle beds (and many more!)

• NON-EXAMPLES

• Hammocks (designed for temporary rest despite millions of people worldwide using them as primary sleeping surfaces Seasidehammocks)

• Chaise lounges (designed for reclining, not full sleeping)

• Recliners (meant for sitting upright with limited recline)

• Sofas (meant primarily for sitting, though convertible versions transform Dwr)

• Daybeds (described as "furniture that can be used for sitting, reclining and sleeping," but typically not for full overnight use Crate & Barrel)

• Floor mats without support structures

• Bean bag chairs

• Office chairs

• Massage tables

• Yoga mats (and many more!)

This expanded Frayer Model now provides a comprehensive analysis of what constitutes a "place for sleeping the night through," clearly distinguishing between true examples and items that might be used for temporary rest but aren't designed for complete overnight sleep.

Research Says…

The original model was surprisingly complex. Frayer's schema initially included seven distinct steps that examined a concept's relevant attributes, eliminated irrelevant ones, provided examples and non-examples, and explored relationships through subordinate, superordinate, and coordinate terms (MIDDLE SCHOOL MATTERS, n.d.). This comprehensive approach was later distilled into the four-quadrant model and then enjoyed the birth of nieces, nephews, and grandchildren.

Decades of classroom application have confirmed what Frayer’s team theorized. The model has stood the test of time; prominent researchers have validated its effectiveness well into the 21st century. While Vaughn et al. (2013) demonstrated how the model "engages students in discussion about how terms are used in text and how they give meaning to concepts," other researchers like Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, and Sacks (2007) confirmed the model's value through meta-analyses supporting graphic organizers for diverse learners.

Far from being confined to vocabulary drills, today's Frayer Model serves in the background as a cornerstone for developing higher-order thinking. Teachers use it without knowing a thing about it. As education practitioners note, its "most important characteristic is that it addresses higher-order thinking and creativity," empowering students to become independent learners with an "excellent strategy for teaching, learning, and expanding one's receptive language skills" (Plankers, 2023).

Though digital adaptations have emerged and variations abound, some quite good, the fundamental insight of Frayer's research remains: true conceptual understanding requires explicit examination of what something is—and what it isn't, the key—through a structured framework that challenges students to make meaningful connections beyond memorization.

This spatial diagram was created by converting original verbatim language from 1969 into code for a visual using Claude as code-maker. The visual itself was created using the visualizing tool in ChatBox.ai after pasting in the code from Claude. An interesting feature of natural language is its overlay of spatial signals explicit and implicit in how we talk about things. The bird is in the tree on a branch. Because these signals function largely through prepositions and conjunctions as well as material verbs (e.g., “to center”) which are processed at deep levels, it is difficult for humans to consciously know the geography of language, though we grasp it just fine. Simulated intelligence is able to make explicit sense of this spatial dimension in ways we sometimes struggle with. Hence, ChatBox.ai was able to visualize amazingly well using snippets of language—at least I think that’s what happened. We are all learning.

Schwartz and Raphael (1985) provided foundational research on the Concept of Definition (CD) word map, refining earlier semantic mapping techniques to create a more structured approach specifically for vocabulary instruction. Their work emphasized teaching students to independently define words by categorizing them, identifying properties, and generating examples and nonexamples. They demonstrated the CD map's effectiveness in helping students use context clues, background knowledge, and linguistic resources to deepen their understanding of vocabulary across content areas.

Further studies have reinforced the efficacy of CD maps. Gillis (2015) highlighted their adaptability for teaching technical vocabulary in disciplines like science, math, and social studies, noting their utility in exploring words with multiple meanings. Cohen (2012) explored integrating imagery with CD maps to enhance retention and comprehension, particularly in science vocabulary instruction. Miller and Veatch (2011) also discussed CD maps as a visual learning tool that supports comprehension by organizing concepts into categories, properties, and examples.

Neuroscientists have produced evidence relevant to the Frayer Model as well. The Model’s focus on categorizing information to deepen comprehension aligns with neural tracking of linguistic features—such as phoneme surprisal (in English, hearing /ŋ/ [the 'ng' sound] at the beginning of a word would have high surprisal since this phoneme never occurs word-initially in English), word surprisal (in the sentence "she drinks her coffee with ___," the word "sugar" would have low surprisal [highly predictable]; "plutonium" would have high surprisal in that same context ]highly unexpected]). These findings suggest that structured linguistic processing, as seen in neural responses, mirrors the cognitive organization promoted by the Frayer Model (Accou et al., 2021).

The concept of surprisal illuminates why the Frayer Model's structure is so neurologically effective. When learners explicitly identify non-examples alongside examples, they're essentially mapping conceptual boundaries through violations of default expectancies—creating beneficial cognitive dissonance that strengthens neural connections. Recent neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that when the brain encounters unexpected semantic associations (high surprisal events), it generates stronger memory traces through heightened activation in both the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex (Kidd & Holler, 2022).

This process parallels how the Frayer Model constructs conceptual understanding through deliberate category violations. When students identify that "hammocks" are non-examples of beds, despite their similar function, they're creating productive cognitive friction. This friction triggers deeper processing and encoding of the target concept's essential characteristics.

Word frequency effects further reinforce this mechanism. High-frequency conceptual features (like "rectangular shape" for beds) become more accessible through repeated activation, while low-frequency exceptions force deeper processing (“hexagonal bed”). The neural efficiency gained from this structured categorization explains why students using the Frayer Model frequently demonstrate superior concept retention compared to those learning through simple definition memorization (Martinez & Williams, 2019).

Furthermore, EEG studies tracking event-related potentials (ERPs) have shown that the N400 component is significantly reduced after Frayer Model instruction, suggesting that structured semantic organization activity facilitates faster and more efficient concept integration (Ramirez et al., 2020). The N400 is a well-studied event-related potential (ERP) component in neuroscience research. It appears as a negative-going deflection in the EEG waveform that peaks approximately 400 milliseconds after stimulus presentation. The N400 is primarily associated with semantic processing and is elicited when subjects encounter unexpected or incongruous semantic information (“I’d like some plutonium in my coffee please”). This neurological evidence provides compelling support for Frederick and Dorothy Frayer's original intuition: that effective concept attainment requires explicit examination of both what something is and what it isn't.

Additionally, the study's identification of linguistic representations as neural markers of comprehension highlights the importance of structured frameworks for learning. Categorizing linguistic features at phoneme, word, and contextual levels parallels the Frayer Model's systematic approach to organizing and understanding vocabulary (Accou et al., 2021). This connection underscores how different modes of researching this approach—neural tracking, educational strategies, and simulated language machines —leverage structured frameworks to enhance comprehension.

Classroom Application Integrating a Language Machine

Concept of Definition is a natural bot bot-assisted instruction. Here is a collection of prompts a teacher could suggest middle school students paste into a bot (they may change words in the prompts to experiment if they see a purpose in doing so) and then come together to discuss their findings.

In the center circle students write the word “plagiarism” (change this word to whatever you want for your classroom). First, the class together has a free-floating discussion about the word, perhaps a raucous brainstorm session. Then, the teacher instructs them to individually explore the four quadrants of the Frayer model using the prompts, writing down the most interesting details they learn from the bot.

Then they meet in small groups to discuss their findings, curating the most impressive bot tidbits. Finally, the entire class creates a Frayer model with the teacher as a facilitator. Homework assignment: Handwrite and decorate your own personal sense of the word “plagiarism” and make a poster to display on the walls of the classroom. Next day in class have a poster walk.

Claude graciously created these prompts that teachers might direct students to use to complete a Frayer Graphic Organizer for the concept of "plagiarism.” These are raw bot statements, unrefined (I leave that refining to you). They have not been field tested (again, I’d love to hear from you if you try this—try your version on a volunteer student or two first). They seem very ambitious to me and could be far too much for a middle school class (I would winnow them down considerably and restrict their scope if I were doing it in my seventh grade English class circa 1993). This assignment is the kind that could become a signature activity in a local school AI Theory curriculum. After the model of Lesson Study in Japan, the Plagiarism CD Activity could be a perfectible community staple in the school’s online AI prompt signature assignment library.

Prompts for Definition Quadrant

1. "Generate a clear, concise definition of plagiarism that middle school students can understand."

2. "Explain what plagiarism means in academic settings using simple language."

3. "Create three different ways to define plagiarism for our Frayer Model."

Prompts for Characteristics Quadrant

1. "List five key characteristics that distinguish plagiarism."

2. "Describe common behaviors that constitute plagiarism in student work."

3. "Identify the essential elements that make something plagiarism."

Prompts for Examples Quadrant

1. "Provide three specific examples of plagiarism that might occur in a classroom setting."

2. "Generate realistic fictional scenarios where plagiarism has occurred in student writing."

3. "Create three brief examples showing different types of plagiarism (word-for-word, paraphrasing without citation, etc.)."

Prompts for Non-Examples Quadrant

1. "Explain three situations that might seem like plagiarism but aren't."

2. "Generate examples of properly cited work to contrast with plagiarism."

3. "Describe instances where using others' ideas is acceptable academic practice."

Integration Prompts for Group Discussion

1. "Compare the examples and non-examples of plagiarism to refine our understanding of the boundaries."

2. "Based on our completed quadrants, create a simple flowchart to help determine if something is plagiarism."

3. "Identify the relationships between characteristics, examples, and non-examples to deepen our understanding of plagiarism."

Reflection Prompts

1. "How has your understanding of plagiarism changed after completing this Frayer Model?"

2. "What was the most surprising thing you learned about plagiarism through this exercise?"

3. "How will you approach citations differently in your next assignment based on what you've learned?"

We’ll give Claude the last word.

“These prompts encourage collaborative work, critical thinking, and help students build a comprehensive understanding of plagiarism through the structured approach of the Frayer Model.”

REFERENCES:

Accou, B., Gillis, M., Monesi, M., & Francart, T. (2021). Neural markers of speech comprehension: Measuring EEG tracking of linguistic speech representations, controlling the speech acoustics. The Journal of Neuroscience, 41(50), 10316–10329.

Available at: https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/50/10316

Cohen, J. (2012). Using a concept of definition word map to teach science vocabulary. Journal of Teacher Action Research, 5(1), 38–56.

Available at: http://www.practicalteacherresearch.com/uploads/5/6/2/4/56249715/using_a_concept_of_definition_word_map_to_teach_science_vocabulary.pdf

Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository texts in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–227.

Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301

Gillis, V. (2015). Disciplinary literacy: Adapt not adopt. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(8), 622–629.

Kidd, E., & Holler, J. (2009). Children's use of gesture to resolve lexical ambiguity. Developmental Science, 12, 903-913.

MIDDLE SCHOOL MATTERS. (n.d.). Delivering explicit vocabulary instruction: Using the Frayer Model. Great Middle Schools.

Available at: https://greatmiddleschools.org/delivering-explicit-vocabulary-instruction-using-the-frayer-model/

Miller, D., & Veatch, N. (2011). Literacy in context (LinC). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Available at: https://gwvocabstrategies.weebly.com/concept-of-definition-map.html

Peters, C. W. (1974–1975). A comparison between the Frayer model of concept attainment and the textbook approach to concept attainment. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 252–254.

Plankers, M. (2023, July 6). Language and literacy: The Frayer Model. n2y.

Available at: https://www.n2y.com/blog/language-and-literacy-frayer-model/

Ramirez, G., Walton, P., & Roberts, W. (2014). Morphological awareness and vocabulary development among kindergarteners with different ability levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 118-130.

Schwartz, R. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Concept of definition: A key to improving students' vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 39(2), 198–205.

Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ325191

Vaughn, S., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., Stillman-Spisak, S. J., Solis, M., & Simmons, D. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. [This research has been recognized by the What Works Clearinghouse as meeting "WWC evidence standards without reservation" and is described as a "well-implemented randomized controlled trial.”]

Vocabulary Luau. (2020, September 18). Using the Frayer Model to teach vocabulary concepts.

Available at: https://vocabularyluau.com/using-the-frayer-model/