Investigating the Impact of Using Cooperative Learning Strategy in Improving EFL Students' Reading Skill: A Case Study of First Year Students of English at College of Education - Sudan University of Science and Technology

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Individual students within a single cohort were randomly assigned to the two groups, not entire classes or schools, and the intervention is group classroom teaching, not one-to-one tutoring, so no exception applies.
    • "They were randomly assigned into two groups: The experimental group using cooperative reading strategies and the control group using a traditional method of instructions." (p. 34)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Subjects were 40 male university students in the English Department, College of Education, SUST. They were randomly assigned into two groups: The experimental group using cooperative reading strategies and the control group using a traditional method of instructions." (p. 34, Abstract) 2) "The researcher took 50 subjects of both sexes to represent the sample of this study. The subjects were divided into two groups: experimental group and control group so that to evaluate the performance before and after the experiment." (p. 36, Participants) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires randomisation at the class level or stronger (school level), with the unit of randomisation clearly described. Here the abstract states that individual students "were randomly assigned into two groups", i.e. student-level randomisation within a single first-year cohort at one college. No classes or schools were randomised. The intervention (cooperative learning in the classroom) is not personal tutoring, so the tutoring exception does not apply. Furthermore, the randomisation process is never described (no method, no allocation procedure), and the paper even contradicts itself on sample composition (40 male students in the abstract vs. 50 subjects of both sexes in the methods), undermining confidence in proper implementation. Criterion C is not met because randomisation was at the student level within one cohort, with no class- or school-level assignment and no applicable exception.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured with a researcher-made pre/post-test ("group interview"), with no named, widely recognised standardised exam.
    • "The required data for the study were collected by means of group interview as pre snd posttest." (p. 37)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Pre-posttest and questionnaire will be used as primary tools for data collection." (p. 35) 2) "Group interview (pre and posttest) was used as primary tools for data collection." (p. 36, Methodology) 3) "The required data for the study were collected by means of group interview as pre snd posttest." (p. 37, Instruments) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires a standard, widely recognised, standardised exam-based assessment, not an instrument created for the study. The paper's only outcome instrument is a pre/post-test administered as a "group interview". No test name is given, no reference to any national or international standardised English or reading examination is made, and no information on validity or reliability of the instrument is provided. The instrument is evidently an ad hoc, researcher-administered assessment; scores were simply analysed in SPSS. There is no quote anywhere in the paper indicating use of a recognised standardised exam. Criterion E is not met because the study used an unnamed, study-specific pre/post-test rather than a recognised standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The paper gives no intervention start date, end date, or measurement date, so a term-long interval from intervention start to outcome measurement cannot be established.
    • "The subjects were divided into two groups: experimental group and control group so that to evaluate the performance before and after the experiment." (p. 36)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The subjects were divided into two groups: experimental group and control group so that to evaluate the performance before and after the experiment." (p. 36) 2) "The out all result provided presented in the above table proves the success of the treatment which had positive effect on the students' performance." (p. 40) 3) "...post-test is significantly improved and that asserts the success of the experiment during the course." (p. 39) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term (about 3-4 months) after the intervention begins, with quoted start and measurement dates. This paper contains no dates at all: no intervention start date, no duration, no schedule of sessions, and no statement of when the post-test was administered relative to the start. The only temporal information is that testing happened "before and after the experiment" and that the experiment occurred "during the course". With no documented interval, it is impossible to verify that at least one term elapsed between intervention start and outcome measurement, and the short-report format suggests a brief classroom experiment. Criterion T is not met because the interval from intervention start to outcome measurement is undocumented and cannot be shown to cover at least one full academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • Beyond stating that the control group received traditional instruction and reporting its test-score statistics, the paper provides no demographic or baseline characteristics of the control group and even contradicts itself on sample size and composition.
    • "The researcher took 50 subjects of both sexes to represent the sample of this study. The subjects were divided into two groups: experimental group and control group..." (p. 36)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Subjects were 40 male university students in the English Department, College of Education, SUST." (p. 34, Abstract) 2) "The researcher took 50 subjects of both sexes to represent the sample of this study. The subjects were divided into two groups: experimental group and control group so that to evaluate the performance before and after the experiment." (p. 36, Participants) 3) "...the control group using a traditional method of instructions." (p. 34) 4) "Pair 1 Before 4.78 50 .954 .135 / After 4.56 50 1.459 .206" (Table 7.3.1.1, p. 38, control group paired samples statistics) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires detailed documentation of the control group: demographics, baseline performance, size, and conditions received. The paper states only that the control group received "a traditional method of instructions" and reports pre/post score means for it (Table 7.3.1.1). However, the documentation is contradictory and inadequate: the abstract says 40 male students total, while the methods say 50 subjects of both sexes; the size of the control group itself is never explicitly stated (the paired-samples tables show N=50 for each group, which is inconsistent with a total sample of 40 or 50 split into two groups); and no demographic information (age, sex breakdown, background) is given for the control group specifically. No baseline comparability between the groups is discussed. These contradictions make it impossible to know who the control group actually was. Criterion D is not met because the control group's size and demographics are undocumented and the reported sample figures are internally contradictory.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Randomisation was at the individual student level within a single college; no schools or institutional units were randomised.
    • "They were randomly assigned into two groups: The experimental group using cooperative reading strategies and the control group using a traditional method of instructions." (p. 34)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Subjects were 40 male university students in the English Department, College of Education, SUST. They were randomly assigned into two groups..." (p. 34) 2) "Subjects of this study were the students of first year at the university level whose major specialization is English Language." (p. 36) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires randomisation among schools or institutional units implementing the intervention. This study took place within a single institution (the College of Education at Sudan University of Science and Technology) and assigned individual first-year students to experimental and control groups. Only one site was involved, and the unit of randomisation was the student, not any school-level unit. Criterion S is not met because the study is a single-site, student-level randomisation with no school-level assignment.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The same authors designed the cooperative learning intervention, taught/ran the experiment, and analysed the data, with no external or third-party evaluation mentioned.
    • "It has observed by the researcher as an expert in the field of teaching and learning English that undergraduate students are somehow week in reading skill, therefore, this study is trying to provide students with solutions..." (p. 35)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "It has observed by the researcher as an expert in the field of teaching and learning English that undergraduate students are somehow week in reading skill, therefore, this study is trying to provide students with solutions to overcome those problems of reading and to improve for better." (p. 35) 2) "The researcher took 50 subjects of both sexes to represent the sample of this study." (p. 36) 3) "For the analysis of the tests, the researcher found out the tests of normality for both pre and post-test..." (p. 37) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the study be conducted independently of those who designed the intervention, or at minimum that independent third-party oversight of data collection and analysis be documented. Here the paper repeatedly refers to "the researcher" personally selecting the sample, administering the pre/post-tests, and analysing the data. The authors are affiliated with the same institution where the experiment ran, and no external evaluator, independent test administrators, or third-party oversight is mentioned anywhere in the paper. Criterion I is not met because the intervention designers themselves conducted, measured, and analysed the study with no documented independent oversight.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • Since criterion T (term duration) is not met and no dates or durations are reported, the study cannot demonstrate tracking over at least 75% of an academic year.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The subjects were divided into two groups: experimental group and control group so that to evaluate the performance before and after the experiment." (p. 36) 2) "...asserts the success of the experiment during the course." (p. 39) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcomes to be measured at least 75% of a full academic year after the intervention begins. Per the instructions, if criterion T (term duration) is not met, this criterion is not met either. The paper reports no start date, no end date, and no measurement date; the post-test appears to have been given at the end of an experiment conducted within a single course. There is no evidence of tracking approaching an academic year. Criterion Y is not met because criterion T failed and no quoted evidence shows year-long tracking.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • The intervention swapped the teaching method (cooperative learning vs. traditional instruction) within normal class teaching, and the control group received comparable instruction with no evidence of extra time, budget, or materials given only to the experimental group.
    • "The experimental group using cooperative reading strategies and the control group using a traditional method of instructions." (p. 34)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "They were randomly assigned into two groups: The experimental group using cooperative reading strategies and the control group using a traditional method of instructions." (p. 34) 2) "This part presented the analysis of pre and post-test for both control group and experimental group through the use of statistical pared samples test." (p. 37) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B requires that the control group receive balanced time and resources unless the extra resources are themselves the treatment variable. Applying the decision tree: the first question is whether the intervention adds extra time or budget beyond normal instruction. The tested intervention is a change of instructional method - cooperative reading strategies instead of traditional teacher-centred instruction - delivered as the students' normal reading instruction. The control group was actively taught using "a traditional method of instructions" and took the same pre- and post-tests. Nothing in the paper indicates that the experimental group received additional instructional hours, materials, technology, or budget beyond regular class time; the contrast is method versus method within the same course, so no extra resources are described as accompanying the intervention. With EXTRA_RESOURCES_PRESENT effectively false on the evidence available, the balance requirement is trivially satisfied by branch 1 of the decision tree. It should be noted that the paper's overall reporting is sparse, so this judgement rests on the absence of any described extra input rather than an explicit statement of matched dosage; both groups are, however, described as receiving instruction within the same course. Criterion B is met because the intervention added no extra time or resources - the control group received comparable traditional instruction during normal teaching.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • Neither the paper nor a fresh internet search shows any independent peer-reviewed replication of this specific SUST cooperative learning reading trial by a different research team.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This study is an investigation for the implementation of cooperative learning strategy and its impact on developing English language learners reading skills." (p. 40, Conclusion) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires that this specific study be independently replicated by a different team in a different context and published in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper itself mentions no replication of its experiment. A verification internet search (Google Scholar and general web search for the authors' names, the paper title, and "cooperative learning" + "reading skill" + "Sudan University of Science and Technology") returned only the original paper itself (hosted on academia.edu and the publisher eajournals.org) and unrelated papers on different cooperative-learning interventions (e.g., A. R. Mahmoud Amer et al. (2022), "The Impact of Collaborative Strategic Reading Strategy on developing EFL Speaking Skills of Tourism and Hospitality Students," which targets a different skill, population, and country). No study was found that cites, references, or attempts to reproduce this specific 2023 SUST trial's design or findings. Criterion R is not met because no independent published replication of this specific study was found, either in the paper or via internet search.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Criterion E is not met (no standardised exam), and only EFL reading was assessed, with no measurement of other main subjects.
    • "This research article is aiming at investigating the Impact of Using Cooperative Learning Strategy in Improving EFL Students' Reading Skill." (p. 34)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This research article is aiming at investigating the Impact of Using Cooperative Learning Strategy in Improving EFL Students' Reading Skill." (p. 34) 2) "The required data for the study were collected by means of group interview as pre snd posttest." (p. 37) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires standardised exam-based assessment across all main subjects, and per the instructions it automatically fails if criterion E fails. Criterion E is not met here because the outcome measure was a custom pre/post-test. In addition, the study measured only English reading skill for English-major students; no other subjects in their programme were assessed, and no specialised-intervention rationale referencing assessment scope is offered. While these are first-year English majors (a specialised programme), the failure of the prerequisite criterion E is decisive regardless. Criterion A is not met because criterion E failed and only a single custom-tested outcome (EFL reading) was measured.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Criterion Y is not met, and measurement stopped at the post-test with no follow-up tracking of students to graduation, either in the paper or in later publications by the same authors found via internet search.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The subjects were divided into two groups: experimental group and control group so that to evaluate the performance before and after the experiment." (p. 36) 2) "The study has found out that students' performance improved significantly after the experiment if it is compared with students' performance before the experiment." (p. 40) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants until graduation from their educational stage, and per the instructions it automatically fails when criterion Y fails, as is the case here. Measurement ended with the post-test at the end of the experiment; the paper describes no follow-up assessments, no plan for longitudinal tracking of this first-year cohort to the end of their degree, and no companion follow-up publications are indicated. A verification internet search for later publications by Tahani Asim Eltaib Mohammed, Tahiya Alshaikh Alhameem Yousif, or Mohamed Ahmed Tom Ali found no follow-up study tracking this cohort. Criterion G is not met because criterion Y failed, tracking stopped at the immediate post-test with no graduation follow-up, and no subsequent tracking paper by these authors was located.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper contains no mention of any pre-registration, registry platform, protocol ID, or registration date, and no registry entry was found for this study on internet search.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This study will have adopted the experimental and descriptive methods. Group interview (pre and posttest) was used as primary tools for data collection." (p. 36) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires the full study protocol to be pre-registered on a public registry before data collection began, with quoted evidence of the registration and its timing. The paper never mentions a registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, OSF, AEA registry), a registration ID, a protocol publication, or any registration date. The methodology section describes only the design and instruments with no reference to a pre-specified, publicly registered plan. Since the paper gives no indication that any pre-registration exists, no registry search could identify a matching entry either. Criterion P is not met because no quoted evidence of pre-registration exists anywhere in the paper, and no registration record was found via internet search.