Mixed proficiency dyads negotiate for meaning more than matched proficiency dyads, irrespective of time and language¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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? Mixed dyads produced more NoM (M = 10.42) than matched dyads (M = 7.12), a significant proficiency pairing 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 · r2
Generalized linear mixed model results for the overall NoM category from the same two-year longitudinal task study of 20 dyads. Mixed dyads were always high-low pairs, whereas half of matched dyads were low-low and half high-high.
"we find a significant proficiency pairing effect, irrespective of time and language ( F(1, 72) = 5.653, p = .020), with mixed dyads negotiating for meaning more (M = 10.42, SD = 6.97) than matched dyads (M = 7.12, SD = 5.96)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Collaborative situations often fail to be productive in practice, so orchestrating collaboration is not simple — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- 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 — related
- The quality rather than the quantity of interactional modifications predicts comprehensible input — related
- Mixed dyads outperform matched dyads in meaning negotiation only in the L2 (proficiency pairing × language interaction) — reports the opposite
- Time (two years) shows no significant effect on children's overall amount of meaning negotiation — related
- Clarification requests show a three-way interaction of proficiency pairing, time and language, declining over time only in matched dyads and in the L1 — 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
mixed-dyads-negotiate-more-than-matched |
title |
Mixed proficiency dyads negotiate for meaning more than matched proficiency dyads, irrespective of time and language |
description |
Mixed proficiency dyads negotiate for meaning more than matched proficiency dyads, irrespective of time and language |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
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.