SCMC interaction shows a small, non-significant advantage over FTF on overall L2 learning outcomes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr?·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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? Across the meta-analyzed studies, SCMC interaction showed a small advantage for overall L2 learning outcomes relative to FTF interaction. → Nicole Ziegler 2016
Evidence¶
Nicole Ziegler 2016¶
Nicole Ziegler. (2016). SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?
Meta-analysis (k = 14) of comparative SCMC–FTF studies. The review reports "a small advantage for interaction in SCMC on measures of overall L2 learning outcomes." The advantage is characterized only as small; no numeric effect size is printed in the available text, so impact is null.
"There was also a small advantage for interaction in SCMC on measures of overall L2 learning outcomes"
Studies bearing on this claim¶
Does the channel learners interact through (face to face, video, text chat, discussion board) change the interaction and what language learners gain from it? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 4 narrower claims that bear on it: 2 distinct studies (1 quant-synthesis, 1 causal), q2–q3, 0 of 2 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.
| Study | Design | Effect as recorded | Bears on this claim through |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nicole Ziegler 2016 | q3 · quant-synthesis · r? | i? | this claim; No significant differences between SCMC and FTF interaction on L2 development overall (qualifies); Interaction in both SCMC and FTF contexts has a significant impact on L2 development (meta (supports) |
| Sarré 2011 | q2 · causal · r1 | i? | Videoconferencing was conducive to more negotiation of meaning than text chat and discussi (qualifies); Discussion board interactions generated no negative feedback at all, suggesting synchrony (qualifies) |
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Mode-specific advantages: SCMC favors productive and written L2 outcomes; FTF favors receptive and oral outcomes — related
- No significant differences between SCMC and FTF interaction on L2 development overall — reports the opposite
- Interaction in both SCMC and FTF contexts has a significant impact on L2 development (meta-analysis of 14 studies, 1990–2012) — related
- Feedback channel is a non-significant moderator of feedback effects — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
scmc-small-advantage-overall-l2-outcomes |
title |
SCMC interaction shows a small, non-significant advantage over FTF on overall L2 learning outcomes |
description |
SCMC interaction shows a small, non-significant advantage over FTF on overall L2 learning outcomes |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — nicole-ziegler-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.