EFL Learners' Negotiation on Form During Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Corrective Feedback in EFL Learners' Uptake

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomisation was carried out at the individual student level within a single university cohort, not at the class or school level, and the intervention is peer dyad chat rather than one-to-one tutoring, so no exception applies.
    • "The 20 participants were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group and a control group." (p. 1177)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Participants were randomly assigned to either a 'no negotiation on form' condition (peer interaction only) or a 'negotiation on form' condition (peer CF interaction)." (Abstract, p. 1175) 2) "The study involved 20 male Saudi medical students in their first year of general English studies at Jazan University." (p. 1177) 3) "The 20 participants were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group and a control group." (p. 1177) 4) "Ten dyads were formed. Each pair was asked to complete an information exchange task via online chat." (p. 1177) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires that randomisation occur at the class level or higher (school level), with an exception only for personal/one-to-one tutoring interventions, in which case student-level randomisation is acceptable. In this study, all 20 participants were drawn from a single cohort of first-year medical students at one university and were individually "randomly divided into two groups". The unit of randomisation is therefore the individual student, not the class or school. Because both conditions were drawn from the same student body and met "during their regular class time" on the same campus, cross-group contamination (e.g., students discussing the form-focus instructions with each other) cannot be ruled out. The intervention is peer-to-peer chat interaction with teacher prompts, not personal one-to-one tutoring, so the tutoring exception does not apply. Criterion C is not met because randomisation was at the individual student level within a single cohort and no valid tutoring exception applies.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured by researcher-coded error, recast, and uptake counts from chat transcripts, not by any standardised exam.
    • "The analysis of the participants' written corpus involved counting the number of errors produced by the non-native speakers (NNSs), the number of types of corrective feedback provided by the participants (i.e., recasts), and the number of utterances repaired or requiring further repair (i.e., uptake)." (p. 1178)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "At the end of each discussion, the chat scripts of both groups were recorded for analysis." (p. 1178) 2) "Errors in the present study were broadly classified as lexical or grammatical. An additional category of errors, which included spelling and punctuation, was also included because of their high frequency in students' writing in class and their importance in adding clarity and precision in the medical field (i.e., writing medical reports)." (p. 1178) 3) "The analysis of the participants' written corpus involved counting the number of errors produced by the non-native speakers (NNSs), the number of types of corrective feedback provided by the participants (i.e., recasts), and the number of utterances repaired or requiring further repair (i.e., uptake)." (p. 1178) 4) "Upon completing the tasks, the participants were interviewed to discuss their experience in online discussions." (p. 1178) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires that outcomes be measured with widely recognised standardised exams, not instruments created for the study. Here the outcome measures are counts of errors, recasts, and uptake moves derived from the researcher's own coding of chat transcripts (Tables 1-3), supplemented by participant interviews. No named standardised test (national exam, recognised proficiency test such as IELTS/TOEFL, or curriculum exam) was administered as an outcome measure at any point. The coding scheme is a study-specific, researcher-made analytic instrument. Criterion E is not met because outcomes were assessed via custom transcript coding rather than any standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The entire study consisted of two chat sessions of about one hour each with outcomes measured immediately from those sessions, far short of a full academic term.
    • "Both groups had two separate sessions to perform the assigned tasks, each lasting approximately one hour." (p. 1177)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Both groups had two separate sessions to perform the assigned tasks, each lasting approximately one hour." (p. 1177) 2) "At the end of each discussion, the chat scripts of both groups were recorded for analysis." (p. 1178) 3) "Upon completing the tasks, the participants were interviewed to discuss their experience in online discussions." (p. 1178) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term (roughly 3-4 months) after the intervention begins, even if the intervention itself is short. In this study, the intervention consisted of only two sessions of approximately one hour each, and the outcome data (chat transcripts) were collected at the end of each session, with interviews conducted immediately upon task completion. There is no mention of any delayed post-test or follow-up measurement weeks or months later. The interval from intervention start to outcome measurement is therefore on the order of hours to days, not a term. Criterion T is not met because outcomes were measured immediately at the end of two one-hour sessions, with no term-long follow-up.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control condition is described procedurally, but no group-specific demographic breakdown or baseline performance data for the control group is reported, so comparability cannot be assessed.
    • "In the control group, students were instructed to focus only on completing the tasks without paying attention to or correcting errors." (p. 1177)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study involved 20 male Saudi medical students in their first year of general English studies at Jazan University. Their language proficiency levels ranged from intermediate to high-intermediate. They were enrolled in Level 2 of their degree program." (p. 1177) 2) "The control group engaged in peer interaction without focusing on the negotiation of form." (p. 1177) 3) "In the control group, students were instructed to focus only on completing the tasks without paying attention to or correcting errors." (p. 1177) 4) "Despite being skilled at grammar in writing examinations and quizzes, most students in the control group did not revise their online messages." (p. 1179) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires detailed documentation of the control group, including demographic information, baseline performance, and treatments received. The paper describes the overall sample (20 male first-year Saudi medical students, intermediate to high-intermediate proficiency) and clearly states what the control group did (peer interaction with no form focus). However, all demographic and proficiency information is given only at the whole-sample level; there is no group-by-group breakdown showing that the 10 control students were comparable to the 10 experimental students. No baseline (pre-intervention) performance measure of any kind was administered or reported for either group - the only quantitative data are the post-hoc error counts in Tables 1 and 2. The claim that students were "skilled at grammar in writing examinations and quizzes" is anecdotal and not backed by reported scores. Without baseline data or group-level characteristics, proper comparison between groups is not possible. Criterion D is not met because the control group lacks documented group-specific demographics and any baseline performance data.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Randomisation occurred among 20 individual students within a single university course, with no school-level or site-level assignment.
    • "The 20 participants were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group and a control group." (p. 1177)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study involved 20 male Saudi medical students in their first year of general English studies at Jazan University." (p. 1177) 2) "The 20 participants were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group and a control group." (p. 1177) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires randomisation at the level of schools or equivalent implementing institutions/sites. This study was conducted at a single institution (Jazan University) with a single cohort of 20 students, and assignment to conditions was made at the individual student level. There is no mention of multiple schools, campuses, centres, or sites being randomised. Criterion S is not met because randomisation was at the student level within one university, not at the school level.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The sole author designed the study and the researcher/teacher also delivered the intervention and coded the outcomes, with no independent third-party evaluation.
    • "Participants met with the researcher on campus during their regular class time." (p. 1177)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Sami Ali Nasr Al-wossabi, Department of Foreign Languages, College of Arts and Humanities, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (p. 1175) 2) "Participants met with the researcher on campus during their regular class time." (p. 1177) 3) "The teacher explained the types of errors that may occur and how to recognize them." (p. 1178) 4) "In addition, the teacher informed participants that oral prompts would be provided via a microphone so participants could notice their errors and reformulate their utterances. No recasts were provided by the teacher." (p. 1178) 5) "At the end of each discussion, the chat scripts of both groups were recorded for analysis." (p. 1178) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the study be conducted independently from those who designed the intervention, or at least document third-party oversight of data collection and analysis. This is a single-author study in which the researcher designed the intervention conditions, and the teacher (working with, and apparently identical to or directed by, the researcher) delivered the instructions and oral prompts, collected the chat scripts, conducted the interviews, and performed the coding and analysis. There is no mention of an external evaluator, independent data collectors, blinded coders, or any third-party oversight anywhere in the paper. Criterion I is not met because the same author designed, implemented, and evaluated the intervention with no independent conduct or oversight documented.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The study lasted only two one-hour sessions with immediate measurement, nowhere near 75% of an academic year, and criterion T is already not met.
    • "Both groups had two separate sessions to perform the assigned tasks, each lasting approximately one hour." (p. 1177)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Both groups had two separate sessions to perform the assigned tasks, each lasting approximately one hour." (p. 1177) 2) "Specifically, future research could explore how learners negotiate language forms in SCMC over longer periods to understand the lasting effects of corrective feedback." (p. 1182) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcome tracking covering at least 75% of a full academic year (~9-10 months) from intervention start. The entire intervention and measurement window here consists of two approximately one-hour sessions, with data collected at the end of each session. The author himself acknowledges the short duration by recommending that future research examine SCMC "over longer periods". In addition, per the ranking instructions, criterion Y cannot be met when criterion T (Term Duration) is not met, and T was found not met. Criterion Y is not met because the study spanned only hours, far short of 75% of an academic year.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • Both groups performed the same tasks in the same two one-hour SCMC sessions, and the only differences (form-focus instructions and teacher prompts) are integral components of the corrective-feedback treatment being tested.
    • "Both groups had two separate sessions to perform the assigned tasks, each lasting approximately one hour." (p. 1177)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The control group engaged in peer interaction without focusing on the negotiation of form. The experimental group incorporated negotiation on form through peer CF interaction." (p. 1177) 2) "Both groups had two separate sessions to perform the assigned tasks, each lasting approximately one hour." (p. 1177) 3) "Before the discussion session, the teacher familiarized the participants with the decision-making tasks." (p. 1177) 4) "In the control group, students were instructed to focus only on completing the tasks without paying attention to or correcting errors. However, participants in the experimental group were asked to pay attention to grammar, lexis, spelling and punctuation in their written messages." (pp. 1177-1178) 5) "The teacher explained the types of errors that may occur and how to recognize them." (p. 1178) 6) "In addition, the teacher informed participants that oral prompts would be provided via a microphone so participants could notice their errors and reformulate their utterances." (p. 1178) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B requires that intervention and control groups receive balanced time and resources unless the extra resources are themselves the treatment variable. Comparing the two conditions: both groups used the same Blackboard chat environment, performed the same decision-making tasks, and had identical dosage - "two separate sessions... each lasting approximately one hour" - with the same teacher familiarisation beforehand. The differences are (a) the experimental group's instructions to attend to form and provide peer corrective feedback, including a brief explanation of error types, and (b) the teacher's oral prompts during the experimental sessions. These elements are not separable add-on resources; they constitute the "negotiation on form through peer CF interaction" condition itself, i.e., they are integral to the treatment being tested (peer CF plus prompts versus meaning-only interaction). Applying the decision tree: educational time and materials are matched across groups, and the modest additional teacher attention (prompts) is the treatment variable, so the balance requirement is satisfied. This integral additional teacher-prompt input to the experimental group is noted here explicitly as required. Criterion B is met because both groups received equal time, tasks, and platform access, and the form-focus instructions and teacher prompts are integral to the CF intervention under test.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication of this specific 2026 study is reported or findable; related SCMC feedback studies by other teams are distinct designs, not replications of this trial.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "However, limited research has examined how synchronous CMC (SCMC) helps EFL learners negotiate on form and how this interaction may impact learner uptake. This study addresses this gap..." (Abstract, p. 1175) 2) "Therefore, further research is needed to expand on these findings and enhance the integration of form-focused tasks in online interactions." (p. 1182) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires that the specific study be independently replicated by a different team, in a different context, in a peer-reviewed journal. This paper was published in April 2026 and is framed as addressing a research gap, i.e., as novel work. The literature it cites (e.g., Samani & Noordin, 2013; Sotillo, 2010; Loewen & Erlam, 2006) consists of prior related studies on CF in SCMC with different designs, populations, and measures; they predate this study and are not replications of it. The author explicitly calls for further research to expand the findings, and no replication of this particular Saudi EFL SCMC design by an independent team was identified. Given the very recent publication date, no post-publication replication exists yet. Internet verification: a search of Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar for this article's title and author found only the original publication itself, with no citing papers or replication studies located as of this check (2026-07-27), consistent with its very recent (April 2026) publication. Criterion R is not met because no independent peer-reviewed replication of this specific study exists.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only EFL linguistic accuracy/uptake was measured via custom transcript coding; no other subjects were assessed and criterion E is not met, which automatically fails A.
    • "Errors in the present study were broadly classified as lexical or grammatical. An additional category of errors, which included spelling and punctuation, was also included..." (p. 1178)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Errors in the present study were broadly classified as lexical or grammatical. An additional category of errors, which included spelling and punctuation, was also included because of their high frequency in students' writing in class..." (p. 1178) 2) "This study addresses this gap by investigating 1) the extent to which EFL Saudi learners negotiate on form in an SCMC environment and 2) whether peer corrective feedback (CF) during SCMC leads to immediate uptake." (Abstract, p. 1175) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires standardised exam-based assessment across all main subjects taught at the relevant educational level, and it has criterion E as a prerequisite. Since criterion E is not met (no standardised exam was used at all), criterion A automatically fails per the ranking instructions. Moreover, the study measured outcomes only within a single narrow domain (English linguistic form: grammar, lexis, spelling, punctuation, and uptake in chat), with no assessment of the participants' other subjects (e.g., medical curriculum courses). While a specialised-course exception could conceivably be argued for a university EFL course, the absence of any standardised assessment makes the point moot. Criterion A is not met because criterion E fails and only one narrow domain was measured with a custom coding scheme.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Measurement ended immediately after the two chat sessions with no follow-up of any kind, let alone tracking to graduation, and prerequisite criterion Y is not met.
    • "Upon completing the tasks, the participants were interviewed to discuss their experience in online discussions." (p. 1178)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Upon completing the tasks, the participants were interviewed to discuss their experience in online discussions." (p. 1178) 2) "Specifically, future research could explore how learners negotiate language forms in SCMC over longer periods to understand the lasting effects of corrective feedback." (p. 1182) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants until graduation from their educational stage. Data collection here concluded with interviews immediately after the two chat sessions; there is no follow-up measurement, no longitudinal tracking of the first-year medical students, and no mention of planned follow-up publications for this cohort. The author's own call for research "over longer periods" confirms the absence of long-term tracking. Additionally, per the ranking instructions, criterion G cannot be met when criterion Y is not met, and Y was found not met. Internet verification: a search for subsequent publications by Sami Ali Nasr Al-wossabi tracking this same cohort of 20 Jazan University students found no such follow-up papers as of this check (2026-07-27). Criterion G is not met because tracking stopped immediately after the sessions and no graduation follow-up exists.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper reports ethics approval but contains no mention of any pre-registered protocol, registry, or registration date.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Jazan University (Approval Reference No. REC-44/05/407). All participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement." (p. 1178) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires pre-registration of the full study protocol (hypotheses, methods, planned analyses) on a public registry before data collection began. The only procedural approval mentioned in the paper is institutional ethics approval, which is not a pre-registration. There is no reference to any registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, OSF, AsPredicted, ISRCTN), no registration ID beyond the ethics reference number, and no registration date anywhere in the text. Internet verification: an OSF Registries search for this author's name and study topic returned no matching registrations, corroborating the absence of pre-registration. Criterion P is not met because no pre-registration of the study protocol is mentioned or evidenced.