Applying Suggestopedia to Improve Students' Listening Skills in English Language at Swinburne Vietnam

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomisation was carried out at the level of individual students via "stratified random assignment", not at the level of classes or schools, and no tutoring exception applies to this group-based teaching method.
    • "Participants were randomly assigned to one of two teaching conditions: a traditional method or the Suggestopedia method, using a stratified random assignment to maintain balance between the groups." (p. 50)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Group Allocation: Students were systematically assigned to one of two groups: - Experimental Group... - Control Group..." (p. 49) 2) "Participants were randomly assigned to one of two teaching conditions: a traditional method or the Suggestopedia method, using a stratified random assignment to maintain balance between the groups." (p. 50) 3) "Sample Selection: Out of the larger population, the researchers chose a representative sample of 40 students, with an equal distribution of genders, to obtain a balanced view of the method's effectiveness." (p. 49) Detailed Analysis: The paper repeatedly describes the unit of randomisation as the individual "student" or "participant", assigned via "stratified random assignment". No quote anywhere states that intact classes or schools were randomised as whole units. The intervention (Suggestopedia sessions using music, art, relaxation and visualization) is delivered to groups of students in a classroom-style setting, not as one-to-one tutoring, so the tutoring exception to this criterion does not apply. Since the stronger school-level criterion (S) is also not met (see below), the weaker class-level criterion cannot be satisfied by substitution either. Final sentence: Criterion C is not met because randomisation was conducted at the individual student level rather than at the class or school level, with no applicable exception.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • The listening test was a researcher/institution-designed instrument built from course textbook materials and a custom rubric, not a widely recognised standardised exam.
    • "The instrument for this study was a rigorously designed English language test, aligned with the objectives of the Global Citizenship Education program." (p. 49)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Both groups underwent standardized listening tests designed to accurately measure comprehension skills in English." (p. 49) 2) "The instrument for this study was a rigorously designed English language test, aligned with the objectives of the Global Citizenship Education program." (p. 49) 3) "listening materials adapted from '21st Century Communication 3 & 4,' which are well-suited for the language proficiency levels at which the study aimed. In addition to the listening materials, a rubric was utilized to systematically evaluate the students' performance, focusing on various aspects of listening comprehension." (p. 50) Detailed Analysis: Although the paper uses the word "standardized" to describe the test administration, the instrument itself is described as purpose-built for this study: it was "designed" and "aligned with the objectives of the Global Citizenship Education program", drawn from a course textbook ("21st Century Communication 3 & 4"), and scored with a study-specific rubric. There is no reference to any externally validated, widely recognised standardised exam (e.g., a national curriculum exam, IELTS, TOEFL). The word "standardized" here appears to mean "administered under uniform conditions" rather than "a nationally/externally recognised standard test". Final sentence: Criterion E is not met because the assessment was a custom, program-specific test rather than a widely recognised standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • Outcomes were measured immediately at the end of an eight-week intervention window, well short of one academic term (~3-4 months).
    • "This study investigated the effectiveness of Suggestopedia in improving English listening comprehension competence among 134 Global Citizenship Program Level 3 and 4 students at Swinburne Vietnam over 8 weeks."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This study investigated the effectiveness of Suggestopedia in improving English listening comprehension competence among 134 Global Citizenship Program Level 3 and 4 students at Swinburne Vietnam over 8 weeks." (p. 45) 2) "For a period of eight weeks, the experimental group participated in Suggestopedia sessions, which included techniques such as relaxation, visualization, and the use of music and art to enhance learning." (p. 49) 3) "Post-test: Conducted after the eight-week period to assess any changes in listening comprehension." (p. 49) Detailed Analysis: Both the intervention start and the outcome measurement date are anchored to the same eight-week window: the post-test is administered right at the end of the eight-week Suggestopedia programme. Eight weeks (about two months) is shorter than the roughly one academic term (3-4 months) required by the standard, and no later follow-up measurement point is reported anywhere in the paper. Final sentence: Criterion T is not met because the interval from intervention start to outcome measurement was only eight weeks, short of a full academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group's condition is described only in vague, one-line terms, with no demographic detail, and the paper's participant counts are internally inconsistent.
    • "Control Group: This group received traditional English instruction methods, serving as a baseline for comparison."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Control Group: This group received traditional English instruction methods, serving as a baseline for comparison." (p. 49) 2) "Table 1. Pretest and Posttest Results of Experimental and Control Group on Listening Ability ... Control Group 10 ... 11.5 / 4.687 (pre-test) ... 15.45 / 3.573 (post-test)" (p. 50) 3) "Sample Selection: Out of the larger population, the researchers chose a representative sample of 40 students, with an equal distribution of genders, to obtain a balanced view of the method's effectiveness." (p. 49) Detailed Analysis: The paper reports only bare pre-/post-test means and standard deviations (N=10) for the control group, with no description of its demographic composition, how "business as usual" instruction was actually delivered, who taught it, or what materials/contact hours it involved beyond the generic label "traditional English instruction methods". In addition, the paper's own participant counts are internally inconsistent: the abstract states "134 ... students" with "60 participants randomly assigned", the design section describes a "sample of 40 students, with an equal distribution of genders", while both results tables report N=10 per cell (implying only 20 students were actually analysed). This inconsistency makes it impossible to confirm exactly who composed the documented control group. Final sentence: Criterion D is not met because the control group is described only in generic terms with no demographic or implementation detail, and the paper's reported sample sizes are internally inconsistent.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • No school-level (or class-level) randomisation is described; assignment was of individual students.
    • "Participants were randomly assigned to one of two teaching conditions: a traditional method or the Suggestopedia method, using a stratified random assignment to maintain balance between the groups." (p. 50)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Group Allocation: Students were systematically assigned to one of two groups..." (p. 49) 2) "Participants were randomly assigned to one of two teaching conditions ... using a stratified random assignment to maintain balance between the groups." (p. 50) Detailed Analysis: There is no mention anywhere in the paper of schools (or even whole classes) being randomised as units; all described randomisation is at the level of the individual student within a single institution (Swinburne Vietnam). Final sentence: Criterion S is not met because randomisation occurred at the student level, not at the school level.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • Both authors are staff/researchers at the same institution whose students were studied, and there is no mention of an independent evaluator or external data-collection team.
    • "I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Ms. Nga Nguyen, my committed collaborator, for her consistent support, cooperation, and invaluable perspectives during all phases of this project."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Nguyen Mai Linh1, Nguyen Thi Thuy Nga2 ... 1 Swinburne University of Technology, Hanoi / 2 Swinburne University of Technology, Hanoi" (p. 45) 2) "I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Ms. Nga Nguyen, my committed collaborator, for her consistent support, cooperation, and invaluable perspectives during all phases of this project." (p. 52) 3) "We would also like to express our gratitude to Swinburne Vietnam for furnishing the essential resources, facilities, and student data access that served as the basis for this research." (p. 52) Detailed Analysis: Both authors are affiliated with Swinburne University of Technology, Hanoi, the very institution whose students formed the study sample, and the acknowledgement section indicates the two authors were the sole research team running "all phases of this project" together. No external evaluator, independent data-collection agency, or blinded test administrator is mentioned anywhere in the paper. Final sentence: Criterion I is not met because the same two researchers who are staff at the studied institution designed, implemented, and evaluated the intervention without any stated independent oversight.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • Since Term Duration (T) is not met, Year Duration cannot be met; total tracking (8 weeks) is far short of 75% of an academic year.
    • "For a period of eight weeks, the experimental group participated in Suggestopedia sessions..."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "...among 134 Global Citizenship Program Level 3 and 4 students at Swinburne Vietnam over 8 weeks." (p. 45) 2) "For a period of eight weeks, the experimental group participated in Suggestopedia sessions..." (p. 49) Detailed Analysis: Per the ERCT specification, Criterion Y automatically fails when Criterion T is not met. Independently of that rule, an eight-week tracking window is far shorter than 75% of an academic year (roughly 9-10 months), so this criterion would not be met on its own merits either. Final sentence: Criterion Y is not met because the study duration (eight weeks) is far shorter than the required academic-year-length tracking, and Criterion T is also not met.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • Both groups received instruction in parallel over the same eight-week period, with no indication that the intervention arm received extra time or budget beyond substituting the teaching method.
    • "After conducting the Suggestopedia intervention for eight weeks with the experimental group, and parallel traditional instruction with the control group, a post-test was administered to measure any shifts in listening skills."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Teaching Intervention: For a period of eight weeks, the experimental group participated in Suggestopedia sessions, which included techniques such as relaxation, visualization, and the use of music and art to enhance learning." (p. 49) 2) "Control Group: This group received traditional English instruction methods, serving as a baseline for comparison." (p. 49) 3) "After conducting the Suggestopedia intervention for eight weeks with the experimental group, and parallel traditional instruction with the control group, a post-test was administered to measure any shifts in listening skills." (p. 50) Detailed Analysis: Both arms received instruction across the identical eight-week period ("parallel traditional instruction with the control group"). The paper gives no indication that the experimental group was given additional class time, budget, or materials beyond substituting Suggestopedia techniques (music, art, relaxation, visualization) for the control group's regular teaching method during the same scheduled lessons. Applying the Criterion B decision procedure: no extra time or budget is documented for the intervention arm relative to the control arm, so the "extra resources present" test is not triggered and the balance requirement is trivially satisfied. This is a method-substitution design (same dosage of instructional time, different pedagogical technique) rather than a design where extra resources were added only to the treatment arm, so no resource imbalance of the kind Criterion B targets is evident from the text. Final sentence: Criterion B is met because both groups received instruction over the same duration with no described additional time or budget given only to the intervention group.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication of this specific study is reported or found; other authors' Suggestopedia studies are different studies in different contexts, not replications of this one.
    • "Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of Suggestopedia on language learning outcomes."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of Suggestopedia on language learning outcomes." (p. 45) 2) Reference list entries by other, independent research teams on Suggestopedia, e.g., "Bernabe, C. (2023). Impact of Suggestopedia Method to Enhance the Listening Skills of the Grade 8 Students." and "Astutik, Y. (2019). The Effect of Using Suggestopedia Among Students' Speaking Ability." (p. 53) Detailed Analysis: The paper itself calls only for future research rather than citing a completed independent replication of this specific Swinburne Vietnam study. Other researchers have studied Suggestopedia's effects on listening or speaking in different populations (e.g., Grade 8 students, other countries), but these are separate studies of the same general teaching method in different contexts and samples, not independent replications of this particular study's design, sample, and findings. Independent internet searches (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar) for this paper's title and authors, and for later Suggestopedia listening replications, returned no matching or citing works and no completed replication of this specific study. No peer-reviewed replication of this specific study was located. Final sentence: Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific study was found.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only English listening comprehension was assessed, and Criterion E (which A depends on) is not met.
    • "This study investigated the effectiveness of Suggestopedia in improving English listening comprehension competence..."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This study investigated the effectiveness of Suggestopedia in improving English listening comprehension competence among 134 Global Citizenship Program Level 3 and 4 students at Swinburne Vietnam over 8 weeks." (p. 45) Detailed Analysis: Per the ERCT specification, Criterion A cannot be met if Criterion E is not met; since E was not satisfied here (the test was not a widely recognised standardised exam), A automatically fails. Independently, the study measured only English listening comprehension and did not assess any other core subjects. Final sentence: Criterion A is not met because only one subject/skill (English listening) was assessed using a non-standardised instrument, and Criterion E is not met.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Since Year Duration (Y) is not met, Graduation Tracking cannot be met, and there is no follow-up beyond the immediate post-test.
    • "Post-test: Conducted after the eight-week period to assess any changes in listening comprehension."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Post-test: Conducted after the eight-week period to assess any changes in listening comprehension." (p. 49) 2) "Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of Suggestopedia on language learning outcomes." (p. 45) Detailed Analysis: Per the ERCT specification, Criterion G cannot be met if Criterion Y is not met, and Y was not satisfied here. Independently, there is no evidence of any follow-up data collection beyond the immediate post-test at the end of the eight-week intervention; the authors explicitly flag long-term effects as an open question for future research rather than something they tracked. A search for subsequent publications by Nguyen Mai Linh and Nguyen Thi Thuy Nga (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar) found no follow-up study tracking this cohort's listening outcomes toward graduation; the same proceedings volume includes another paper by these authors ("The Realization of Thematic Progression in Academic Writing in Global Citizenship Program: A Case Study"), but it addresses a different outcome (writing thematic progression) rather than graduation tracking of this listening intervention. Final sentence: Criterion G is not met because there was no tracking beyond the immediate post-intervention test, no follow-up publication tracking the cohort was found, and Criterion Y is also not met.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • No mention of a pre-registered protocol, registry name, or registration date appears anywhere in the paper.
    • Relevant Quotes: No quotes were found referencing pre-registration, a registry platform (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, AEA RCT Registry, OSF Registries), or a registration date anywhere in the methodology, procedures, or references sections of the paper. Detailed Analysis: The paper describes hypotheses, methodology, and procedures only within the manuscript itself, with no indication that a study protocol, hypotheses, or analysis plan were publicly registered before data collection began. Final sentence: Criterion P is not met because no pre-registration is mentioned anywhere in the paper.