EFL primary children's meaning negotiation during a spot-the-differences task is low in amount but significantly higher in the L2 than in the L1¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Overall meaning negotiation (NoM) relative to utterances is remarkably low and is higher in the L2 (M = 10.24) than in the L1 (M = 7.30), with a significant language effect. → Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester 2020
Evidence¶
Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester 2020¶
Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester, Alexandra Vraciu. (2020). EFL child peer interaction: Measuring the effect of time, proficiency pairing and language of interaction. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 449-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.3
q3 · i? · associational · r1
Generalized linear mixed model on oral production of 40 children in 20 dyads performing a spot-the-differences task twice over two years, with time, proficiency pairing and language as fixed factors. The language effect was significant (F(1, 72) = 4.496, p = .037), with "higher in the L2" than L1 negotiation.
"Amount of L2 and L1 meaning negotiation, as measured by percentage of meaning negotiation types together (i.e., NoM) in relation to number of utterances is remarkably low and appears to be higher in the L2 (M = 10.24, SD = 7.10) than in the L1 (M = 7.30,SD = 5.89)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Time (two years) shows no significant effect on children's overall amount of meaning negotiation — related
- Mixed dyads outperform matched dyads in meaning negotiation only in the L2 (proficiency pairing × language interaction) — related
- Within-language strategy profiles differ: other-repetition prevails in the L2 while clarification requests prevail in the L1, with negative feedback least used — related
- All meaning negotiation strategies appear in child EFL peer interaction except comprehension checks, which are absent — related
- Mixed proficiency dyads negotiate for meaning more than matched proficiency dyads, irrespective of time and language — related
- Strategy-specific effects: time affects self-repetitions and marginally clarification requests; proficiency pairing affects confirmation checks and negative feedback; language affects other-repetitions and negative feedback — related
- Non-native speaker dyads provided with subtitled videos before tasks produce a significantly higher percentage of negotiated turns in online TBLL than dyads without videos — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
efl-child-nom-low-l2-higher-than-l1 |
title |
EFL primary children's meaning negotiation during a spot-the-differences task is low in amount but significantly higher in the L2 than in the L1 |
description |
EFL primary children's meaning negotiation during a spot-the-differences task is low in amount but significantly higher in the L2 than in the L1 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — elisabet-pladevall-ballester-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.