Mixed dyads outperform matched dyads in meaning negotiation only in the L2 (proficiency pairing × language interaction)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A significant proficiency pairing × language interaction shows mixed dyads produced more NoM (M = 13.17) than matched dyads (M = 7.31) but only in the L2. → 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

Two-way interaction from the generalized linear mixed model on overall NoM in the two-year dyad study. The contrast between dyad types was not seen in L1 instances of NoM.

"Our analysis displayed one significant interaction, namely between proficiency pairing and language (F(1, 72) = 4.406, p = .039), where mixed dyads produced more NoM (M = 13.17, SD = 7.13) than matched dyads (M =7.31, SD = 5.90) but only in the L2."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 proficiency dyads negotiate for meaning more than matched proficiency dyads, irrespective of time and language — reports the opposite
• Time (two years) shows no significant effect on children's overall amount of meaning negotiation — 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