In college groups, negotiation of meaning made no difference to comprehensible input obtained in the match task¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? College experimental and control groups attained identical comprehensible-input scores, so no difference could be tested. → Baoshu Yi & Zhinong Sun 2013
Evidence¶
Baoshu Yi & Zhinong Sun 2013¶
Baoshu Yi & Zhinong Sun. (2013). An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of Negotiation of Meaning in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition of Chinese Learners of English. English Language Teaching, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p120
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Table 3 shows both college groups (n=38 control, n=42 experimental) scored a constant mean of 5.0000 with zero standard deviations, so "T cannot be computed because the standard deviations of both groups are 0." The authors note this matches Ellis and He (1999).
"there is no significant differ ence between the control group and the experimental group in terms of comprehensible input because the value of comprehensible input is constant (mean=5. 0000) and t-value can not be computed at all"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Conversational interaction facilitates second language grammatical development in adult ESL learners — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Learner age/level moderates the benefit of negotiation of meaning: high school learners relied on it more than college learners — related
- In high school groups, learners with negotiation of meaning obtained more comprehensible input in the match task than learners with pre-modified input only — related
- Interactionally adjusted and premodified input yield statistically comparable comprehension overall, with negotiation benefiting lower-ability learners — related
- In college groups, no correlation was found between frequency of negotiation of meaning and vocabulary score — related
- In high school groups, frequency of negotiation of meaning correlates positively with vocabulary score (r = 0.761) and with comprehensible input (r = 0.310) — related
- Negotiated interaction yields higher moment-to-moment comprehension of L2 input than either noninteraction condition, which do not differ from each other — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
college-no-comprehensible-input-difference |
title |
In college groups, negotiation of meaning made no difference to comprehensible input obtained in the match task |
description |
In college groups, negotiation of meaning made no difference to comprehensible input obtained in the match task |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2013 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — baoshu-yi-zhinong-sun-2013 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.