Effect of Cooperative Learning on the Writing Skill at Elementary Level in the Subject of English

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • The paper explicitly self-identifies as a quasi-experimental non-equivalent-groups design with assignment based on prior class results rather than genuine randomisation, so criterion C is not met.
    • "The study was Quasi Experimental with a Non-equivalent control group, pre-test and post-test design."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study was Quasi Experimental with a Non-equivalent control group, pre-test and post-test design." (Abstract, p. 35) 2) "One section was randomly selected as experimental group (X1) and the other was assigned to control group (X2) on the basis their previous class results." (Abstract, p. 35) 3) "The Quasi-experimental (non-equivalent groups) pre-test, post-test, control group design was used." (p. 38) 4) "The intact groups were randomly assigned to the treatments." (p. 38) 5) "One section was randomly assigned to experimental group (X1) and the other was assigned to the control group(X2)." (p. 38) Detailed Analysis: The unit of assignment was the intact class section, not individual students, which structurally matches the class-level requirement. However this is undermined by two facts: (a) the authors explicitly and repeatedly self-classify the design as "Quasi Experimental" with a "Non-equivalent control group" (stated identically in both the Abstract and the Methodology), which is inconsistent with a genuine RCT; (b) the Abstract states groups were selected on "the basis their previous class results," i.e. by matching prior achievement rather than by a randomisation procedure, directly contradicting the Methodology's separate claim that "intact groups were randomly assigned." No randomisation procedure (e.g. coin flip, random number generator, or lottery) is described anywhere in the paper. Given the paper's own repeated self-identification as a non-equivalent-groups quasi-experiment and the contradictory, undocumented assignment procedure, this cannot be considered a properly implemented random assignment at the class level. Final: Criterion C is not met because the paper self-identifies as a non-equivalent-groups quasi-experiment with assignment based on prior achievement, not documented randomisation.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • The study used a teacher-made, researcher-designed test rather than a standardised, widely recognised exam, so criterion E is not met.
    • "a teacher made pre-test was conducted ... After the treatment of Cooperative Learning, a teacher made post-test was administered on experimental and control groups."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The control and experimental groups compared on the basis of the their past class achievement and a teacher made pre-test was conducted after the assessment of students to experimental and control groups." (p. 39) 2) "After the treatment of Cooperative Learning, a teacher made post-test was administered on experimental and control groups." (p. 39) 3) "The researcher with the help of standardized and validated instrument developed pre-test and post-test after a careful review of test development methods to evaluate students' writing skill." (p. 39) 4) "Validity of the tests was assured by instructors and specialists in English subject." (p. 39) 5) "Value of the Cronbach's Alpha depicts that reliability of the test was .742 which is statistically significant." (p. 39) Detailed Analysis: The instrument used was a "teacher made" pre-test/post-test, i.e. a custom assessment created by the researcher specifically for this study, not a nationally or internationally recognised standardised exam (e.g. a national curriculum exam or standardised English proficiency test). Although the authors describe the test as developed with reference to "test development methods" and report an internal-consistency reliability figure (Cronbach's alpha = .742), reliability/validity checks on a researcher-made instrument do not make it a standardised, widely recognised exam. No standardised test name is mentioned anywhere in the paper. Final: Criterion E is not met because a custom teacher-made test was used rather than a widely recognised standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The paper does not clearly document the intervention start date, and its vague four-month follow-up claim is not linked to any reported data, so the term-duration interval cannot be verified as met.
    • "In order to examine the effect of the treatment, a post-test was administered after four months in the usual classroom setting."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The results also revealed that students in the experimental group achieved higher scores on writing in English comprehension than the control group." (p. 42, Conclusions) 2) "In order to examine the effect of the treatment, a post-test was administered after four months in the usual classroom setting." (p. 42, Conclusions) 3) "It was found out that there was significant sustainability effect of cooperative learning techniques even after four months of treatment." (p. 42, Conclusions) 4) Tables 1-3 (pp. 40-41) report only a single set of independent-sample t-test results with no stated dates for intervention start, intervention duration, or measurement timing. Detailed Analysis: No explicit start date or explicit duration of the intervention itself is given anywhere in the Methodology or Instrumentation sections (no weeks/months stated for the CIRC-based cooperative-learning sessions). The primary reported results (Tables 1-3) appear to reflect an immediate post-test, with no time lag mentioned in the Methodology or Data Analysis sections. Only in the Conclusions, disconnected from any data table or described methodology, is there a passing statement that "a post-test was administered after four months," said to show a "sustainability effect." This claim is not supported by any table, statistic, or described procedure elsewhere in the paper, and its relationship (if any) to the Tables 1-3 results is unclear. Final: Criterion T is not met because the intervention start date is undocumented and the sole four-month follow-up claim is unsupported by any data or methodological description.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group's size, school, comparability basis and instructional treatment (grammar translation method) are described, satisfying a minimal documentation requirement.
    • "There were two sections of 7th grade in the school and 34 students in each section. ... the other was assigned to control group (X2) on the basis their previous class results."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Population comprised 68 students enrolled at the elementary level (7th grade) in Government Girls High School BurjAttari, Sheikhupura." (p. 38) 2) "There were two sections of 7th grade in the school and 34 students in each section." (Abstract, p. 35) 3) "The control and experimental groups compared on the basis of the their past class achievement and a teacher made pre-test was conducted after the assessment of students to experimental and control groups." (p. 39) 4) Table 1: "Control Group 34 14.70 5.28" (p. 40) Detailed Analysis: The control group is identified as one 34-student intact section of 7th grade at the same school, compared to the experimental group on the basis of past class achievement, with its pre-/post-test descriptive statistics reported in Tables 1-3. The paper states the control group continued to be taught via the standard "grammar translation method," described in the Introduction as the pre-existing, traditional instructional approach. While the paper does not give rich demographic detail beyond section membership, sample size, and past-achievement basis for comparability, it does provide a minimally adequate description of the control condition's composition, size, comparability basis, and instructional treatment. Final: Criterion D is met because the control group's size, school setting, comparability basis and instructional treatment are documented.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • The study used only two sections within a single school, not school-level randomisation, so criterion S is not met.
    • "Population comprised 68 students enrolled at the elementary level (7th grade) in Government Girls High School BurjAttari, Sheikhupura."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Population comprised 68 students enrolled at the elementary level (7th grade) in Government Girls High School BurjAttari, Sheikhupura." (p. 38) 2) "There were two sections of 7th grade in the school and 34 students in each section." (Abstract, p. 35) Detailed Analysis: The entire study was conducted within a single school (Government Girls High School Burj Attari), with the two 7th-grade sections of that one school serving as the experimental and control groups. There is no school-level randomisation; only two classes within the same school were compared to one another. This falls far short of the school-level requirement, which calls for randomisation among multiple schools. Final: Criterion S is not met because only two sections of a single school were compared, with no school-level randomisation.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The same researcher designed, delivered, and evaluated the intervention with no independent third-party evaluator, so criterion I is not met.
    • "The researcher worked with writing groups tried to teach each other writing skills by using reciprocal writing technique."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The researcher with the help of standardized and validated instrument developed pre-test and post-test after a careful review of test development methods to evaluate students' writing skill." (p. 39) 2) "Researcher taught students the usage of the vocabulary and then checked the student's pronunciation of all the vocabulary items of the mentioned lesson." (p. 39) 3) "The researcher worked with writing groups tried to teach each other writing skills by using reciprocal writing technique." (p. 39) Detailed Analysis: The paper indicates that "the researcher" personally designed the test instrument and delivered the intervention lessons (teaching vocabulary, working with the writing groups), and presumably was involved in the resulting data collection and analysis. There is no mention anywhere in the paper of an independent, third-party organisation or blinded external evaluator conducting the data collection or analysis. The researcher who designed and delivered the intervention appears to be the same person assessing its effects, directly conflicting with the independence requirement. Final: Criterion I is not met because the same researcher designed, delivered and evaluated the intervention with no independent oversight.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • Since criterion T is not met and there is no evidence of a near-year-long duration, criterion Y is not met.
    • Detailed Analysis: Per the ERCT-specific instruction, if criterion T (Term Duration) is not met, then criterion Y is automatically not met. Additionally, no quote in the paper suggests tracking or intervention duration approaching a full academic year (~9-10 months); the only duration reference is the ambiguous, undocumented "four months" follow-up mentioned once in the Conclusions (p. 42), which is not supported by any data or described methodology. Final: Criterion Y is not met because criterion T is not met and no year-long tracking is documented.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • No additional class time, materials, or budget beyond normal instruction is described for either group, so the resource-balance requirement is trivially satisfied.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) technique would be used to develop writing skill. Firstly, reading groups would be established in the classroom. Next, students would be paired off within the groups." (p. 39) 2) "The researcher worked with writing groups tried to teach each other writing skills by using reciprocal writing technique." (p. 39) 3) No explicit statement anywhere in the paper of extra class time, extra sessions, extra budget, or extra materials given to the experimental group beyond what the control group received; the control group was taught via "grammar translation method" during the same normal, regularly scheduled class periods. Detailed Analysis: Re-applying the current criterion B decision tree: EXTRA_RESOURCES_PRESENT is false, because the paper does not describe any additional class time, extra sessions, extra materials, or additional budget given to the experimental group. Both groups appear to have been taught during their normal, regularly scheduled English class periods, differing only in instructional technique (cooperative CIRC-based grouping versus grammar-translation instruction). Since no extra resources are given to either arm, the decision tree returns "met" at the first branch without needing to evaluate treatment-integrality or within-subjects considerations. Final: Criterion B is met because no additional time, budget or materials were given to either group beyond normal instruction.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication of this specific study was found in the paper or via internet search; the cited studies are related but distinct research, not replications.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The findings of different studies on writing skill and cooperative learning were in accordance to this study (Alodwan, 2012; Bolukbas, Keskin & Polat, 2011; Khan, 2008)." (p. 41) 2) No mention anywhere in the paper of a replication of this specific Government Girls High School Burj Attari study. Detailed Analysis: The Discussion section cites several other studies on cooperative learning and writing/reading skills that report broadly consistent findings (e.g., Alodwan 2012 on Jordan, Bolukbas et al. 2011 on Turkish, Khan 2008). However, none of these are replications of this specific study (same population, same instrument, same intervention protocol conducted by a different, independent team); they are separate, unrelated studies of cooperative learning in different contexts, subjects, and languages. An internet search was carried out for independent replications of this exact study (same population, instrument and protocol at Government Girls High School Burj Attari, Sheikhupura), checking ERIC, academic search engines and citation indexes for the paper and its authors. Only the original publication itself and its indexing records (ERIC, ProQuest, Academia.edu, SciSpace) were located; no independent replication study by a different research team was found. Final: Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific study was found in the paper or via internet search.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only English writing was assessed, and since criterion E is not met, criterion A is not met.
    • "The study aimed to identify the effect of cooperative learning in writing ability of the 7th class students in the subject of English."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study aimed to identify the effect of cooperative learning in writing ability of the 7th class students in the subject of English." (Abstract, p. 35) Detailed Analysis: Only English writing ability was assessed; no other core subjects (mathematics, science, etc.) were measured. Per the ERCT-specific instruction, since criterion E (Exam-based Assessment) is not met, criterion A is automatically not met as well. Final: Criterion A is not met because only one subject (English writing) was assessed and criterion E is not met.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Since criterion Y is not met, criterion G is automatically not met; no follow-up publication tracking this cohort toward graduation was located via internet search.
    • Detailed Analysis: Per the ERCT-specific instruction, since criterion Y (Year Duration) is not met, criterion G is automatically not met. Additionally, there is no mention anywhere in the paper of tracking students until graduation from elementary/middle school; the only follow-up reference is the vague, undocumented four-month post-test mentioned in the Conclusions (p. 42). An internet search was carried out for subsequent publications by Sumaira Munawar or Abid Hussain Chaudhary that might track the same cohort of students at Government Girls High School Burj Attari, Sheikhupura beyond this 2019 paper. No such follow-up or graduation-tracking publication was found; only the original 2019 paper and its indexing records were located. Final: Criterion G is not met because criterion Y is not met and no graduation tracking is described in the paper or in any located follow-up publication.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • No mention of pre-registration is found anywhere in the paper, and no trial-registry record was located via internet search, so criterion P is not met.
    • Detailed Analysis: The paper contains no reference to any trial registry (e.g. ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, OSF Registries) or any statement that the study protocol, hypotheses, or analysis plan were published prior to data collection. No quote confirming pre-registration exists anywhere in the paper. An internet search for a pre-registration record of this study (by title, authors and institution) did not locate any trial-registry entry; this is consistent with the study being an unregistered, small-scale quasi-experimental classroom study published in a regional journal. Final: Criterion P is not met because no pre- registration statement or registry reference is found in the paper or via internet search.