Navigating emotional resonance and language identity through World Englishes education: an experimental intervention with EFL learners in China

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Entire intact classes were randomly assigned to experimental vs. control conditions, satisfying class-level randomization.
    • Two teaching classes, which initially exhibited no significant differences in English language identity and emotional resonance with English, were randomly assigned as the experimental and control classes.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Two teaching classes, which initially exhibited no significant differences in English language identity and emotional resonance with English, were randomly assigned as the experimental and control classes." (p. 1) 2) "Following comparative analysis, two classes demonstrating no significant differences on these baseline measures were randomly designated as the experimental class (EC) and the control class (CC)." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires that the unit of randomization be the class (or a stronger unit such as the school) to reduce contamination that can occur when students within the same class receive different conditions. The paper explicitly states that "two teaching classes" were "randomly assigned" to experimental and control roles, and it reiterates this in the participants section by stating the two classes were "randomly designated" as EC and CC. Although the authors label the design "quasi-experimental," ERCT criterion C is satisfied as long as the unit of assignment is the intact class (or stronger) and this is clearly documented. Criterion C is met because intact teaching classes were randomly assigned to experimental versus control conditions.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured with questionnaires rather than a standardized exam-based assessment.
    • Data were collected via a survey comprising two questionnaires.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Data were collected via a survey comprising two questionnaires." (p. 1) 2) "Data were collected using two questionnaires." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires outcomes to be measured using a standardized, widely recognized exam-based assessment (for example, a national or state standardized test). The intent is to avoid outcomes being measured only through instruments that are not standardized achievement exams. In this study, outcomes are measured via two questionnaires (an English language identity questionnaire and an emotional resonance questionnaire). Even though the instruments are adapted from prior work and have reliability/validity information, they are not described as standardized exam-based academic assessments. Therefore, the study does not meet the ERCT exam-based assessment requirement. Criterion E is not met because the outcomes are questionnaire- based rather than standardized exam-based assessments.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The follow-up occurred after about 10 weeks, which is shorter than a typical academic term (~3–4 months).
    • After a period of 10 weeks, the research team conducted a follow-up survey assessing students’ English language identity and emotional resonance with English.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "After a period of 10 weeks, the research team conducted a follow-up survey assessing students’ English language identity and emotional resonance with English." (p. 1) 2) "The instructional intervention consisted of 8-week courses delivered by a single English instructor to both the EC and the CC." (p. 3) 3) "In the tenth week, the second and third authors conducted a follow-up assessment using the same questionnaires to evaluate changes in participants’ English language identity and emotional resonance." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term after the intervention begins (typically around 3–4 months). The paper reports an 8-week instructional period and states that follow-up measurement happened "after a period of 10 weeks" / "in the tenth week." Ten weeks is roughly 2.5 months, which is shorter than a typical academic term in most higher-education calendars. Because the elapsed time from intervention start to outcome measurement is only about 10 weeks, the study does not satisfy the minimum term-duration follow-up requirement. Criterion T is not met because the follow-up is about 10 weeks after the intervention began, which is shorter than a full term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control class is described with sample size, demographics, the control curriculum, and baseline outcome comparability.
    • The EC comprised 38 students (24 females, 14 males), aged 18–20 years, with a mean age of 18.6. The CC included 39 students (22 females, 17 males), aged 18–21 years, with a mean age of 19.2.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The EC comprised 38 students (24 females, 14 males), aged 18–20 years, with a mean age of 18.6. The CC included 39 students (22 females, 17 males), aged 18–21 years, with a mean age of 19.2." (p. 3) 2) "Conversely, the CC participated in a course on the history of the English language, guided by the textbook A History of English: An Introduction (2nd Edition) by Gramley (2018)." (p. 4) 3) "An independent samples t-test confirmed no statistically significant pre-existing difference between the two groups (p = 0.962 > 0.05)." (p. 4) 4) "Similarly, for emotional resonance (measured on a 75-point scale), the average scores for the EC (M = 39.95) and the CC (M = 40.18) were comparable, with the t-test again indicating no significant difference (p = 0.638 > 0.05)." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires that the control group be well documented so readers can understand who the controls are, what they received, and whether baseline status is comparable. The paper documents the control class sample size and demographics (including age and gender composition). It also describes what the control class received instructionally (a course on the history of English, including a named textbook). Finally, it provides baseline outcome comparability information via pre-intervention means and statistical tests for both primary outcomes. This satisfies ERCT’s documented control group requirement because the control condition and its baseline comparability are clearly described. Criterion D is met because the control group is clearly described and baseline comparability is reported.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Randomization occurred between classes within one institute, not between multiple schools/sites.
    • This study was conducted at the S Institute, a corporate entity specializing in English language education, which enrolls over 1,000 learners annually in its training programs.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This study was conducted at the S Institute, a corporate entity specializing in English language education, which enrolls over 1,000 learners annually in its training programs." (p. 3) 2) "Following comparative analysis, two classes demonstrating no significant differences on these baseline measures were randomly designated as the experimental class (EC) and the control class (CC)." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires school-level (or site-level) randomization, meaning that entire schools or implementation sites are randomly assigned to conditions. This study appears to take place at a single site ("the S Institute") and assigns conditions at the class level within that site. There is no indication that multiple institutes/schools were randomized, nor that the unit of assignment was the school/site. Therefore, the study does not meet the ERCT school-level RCT criterion. Criterion S is not met because assignment was at the class level within a single institute rather than across schools/sites.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The second and third authors conducted data collection and analysis, and no independent evaluator is documented.
    • Data collection commenced with the administration of questionnaires by the second and third authors to assess participants’ English language identity and their emotional resonance about English.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Data collection commenced with the administration of questionnaires by the second and third authors to assess participants’ English language identity and their emotional resonance about English." (p. 4) 2) "In the tenth week, the second and third authors conducted a follow-up assessment using the same questionnaires to evaluate changes in participants’ English language identity and emotional resonance." (p. 4) 3) "Following data collection, the second and third authors performed a comprehensive analysis of the gathered data." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the evaluation be conducted independently from the intervention designers/research authors, typically through an external evaluation team or clearly described independence safeguards. Here, the paper states that the second and third authors administered the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up and also performed the data analysis. The paper does not describe a third- party evaluation team, independent data collectors, or separation between the research team and the evaluation process. While teaching was delivered by "a single English instructor," the paper does not state that measurement/analysis were independent from the authors. Criterion I is not met because independent conduct is not documented for data collection and analysis.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • Outcomes were measured after about 10 weeks, far less than 75% of an academic year, and T is not met.
    • After a period of 10 weeks, the research team conducted a follow-up survey assessing students’ English language identity and emotional resonance with English.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "After a period of 10 weeks, the research team conducted a follow-up survey assessing students’ English language identity and emotional resonance with English." (p. 1) 2) "The instructional intervention consisted of 8-week courses delivered by a single English instructor to both the EC and the CC." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires that outcomes be measured at least 75% of one academic year after the intervention begins. The study’s follow-up is reported at approximately 10 weeks after the intervention began, which is substantially shorter than an academic year. Additionally, under the ERCT dependency rule, if criterion T is not met, then criterion Y is not met. Criterion Y is not met because the study only follows participants for about 10 weeks (and it fails criterion T).
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • Both groups received comparable instructional time and access, and the control condition was an active course of equal duration.
    • Both classes received identical instructional content, except that the experimental class participated in 16 academic hours focused on World Englishes, whereas the control class received 16 academic hours on the history of the English language.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Both classes received identical instructional content, except that the experimental class participated in 16 academic hours focused on World Englishes, whereas the control class received 16 academic hours on the history of the English language." (p. 1) 2) "The instructional intervention consisted of 8-week courses delivered by a single English instructor to both the EC and the CC." (p. 3) 3) "Participants did not receive monetary compensation or gifts for their involvement; however, they were granted complimentary access to the courses." (p. 3) 4) "Subsequently, the EC engaged in a course focused on World Englishes, attending eight lectures totaling approximately 16 academic hours." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B compares the nature, quantity, and quality of resources (time, instructional attention, materials, budget) provided to the intervention and control conditions. If the intervention adds extra time/budget that is not framed as the treatment variable, the control should receive comparable inputs to isolate the intervention’s effect. The paper explicitly reports that both conditions received the same overall time dosage: 16 academic hours, delivered over an 8-week period, and taught by the same instructor. The control condition is an active alternative course (history of English), not a minimal- contact or no-treatment control. Both groups also received "complimentary access to the courses," so participant benefits are not asymmetric. The key difference is the curriculum focus (World Englishes vs. history of English), not additional time, money, or personnel. Criterion B is met because instructional time and access/resources are comparable across conditions, consistent with the updated ERCT definition of resource balance.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication by a different research team was found in the paper or in post-publication searching.
    • To the authors’ best knowledge, this investigation represents the first experimental effort to effectively influence the English language identity of Chinese university students, thereby contributing a novel academic insight to the field.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "To the authors’ best knowledge, this investigation represents the first experimental effort to effectively influence the English language identity of Chinese university students, thereby contributing a novel academic insight to the field." (p. 5) 2) "To the authors’ knowledge, this study constitutes the first experimental effort to successfully influence the emotional resonance that Chinese learners have with English, marking another significant academic contribution." (p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires an independent replication of this study’s core experimental claim by other authors (i.e., a different research team), in a peer-reviewed outlet. Within the paper itself, the authors frame the work as the "first experimental effort" for both the language identity and emotional resonance outcomes, which is consistent with the claim not yet having established independent replications. Internet searching (as of 2026-04-14) for replications using the intervention description and key outcomes (World Englishes education; English language identity; emotional resonance; experimental/control class design) did not identify a peer-reviewed study by a different author team that explicitly replicates this Frontiers in Psychology 2026 experiment. Therefore, the reproduction requirement is not satisfied. Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific study was found.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • The study does not use standardized exams (E is not met), so it cannot meet the all-subject standardized exam requirement.
    • Data were collected via a survey comprising two questionnaires.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Data were collected via a survey comprising two questionnaires." (p. 1) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires standardized exam-based assessment across all main subjects and has a prerequisite rule: if criterion E is not met, then criterion A is not met. This study measures outcomes using questionnaires rather than standardized exams. Because criterion E is not met, criterion A must also be marked not met regardless of any subject coverage. Criterion A is not met because the study does not use standardized exam-based assessments (criterion E is not met).
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • The study does not track participants until graduation, and it cannot meet this criterion because Y is not met.
    • After a period of 10 weeks, the research team conducted a follow-up survey assessing students’ English language identity and emotional resonance with English.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "After a period of 10 weeks, the research team conducted a follow-up survey assessing students’ English language identity and emotional resonance with English." (p. 1) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants until graduation (in the relevant educational stage) to evaluate long-term impacts. The study reports only a short-term follow-up at 10 weeks and does not describe any long-term administrative tracking or graduation outcomes. Per ERCT dependency rules, if criterion Y is not met, criterion G is not met. Since the total tracking window here is far shorter than an academic year, graduation tracking is not present. Additional internet searching (as of 2026-04-14) for subsequent follow-up publications by the same author team reporting longer- term tracking of this cohort (including graduation outcomes) did not identify relevant follow-up papers tied to this study. Criterion G is not met because outcomes were only followed for about 10 weeks and no graduation tracking (or follow-up paper providing it) was found.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • No preregistration record (registry name/ID and pre-data-collection date) is reported or could be verified.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This quasi-experimental study received approval from the Committee of Ethics and Integrity in Research with Humans at the S Institute (a pseudonym employed here to address ethical considerations)." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires that the study protocol be preregistered before data collection begins, with explicit evidence such as a registry platform, registration ID, and a registration date. The paper includes ethics approval information, but it does not mention preregistration, a registry, a registration identifier, or a registration date. Additional internet searching (as of 2026-04-14) for a preregistration record associated with the paper title, DOI, and author names did not identify a verifiable preregistration entry with a date preceding the study. Criterion P is not met because preregistration is not documented in the paper and no verifiable preregistration record was found.