The impact of cooperative learning approach on the development of EFL learners' speaking fluency

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomisation was conducted at the individual student level within a single institute, not at the class or school level, and no tutoring exception applies.
    • "Then, they were randomly divided into three equal groups including two experimental groups (Think-pair share technique group (TPSTG) and Numbered heads technique group (NHTG)) and one control group (traditional instruction)." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Then, they were randomly divided into three equal groups including two experimental groups (Think-pair share technique group (TPSTG) and Numbered heads technique group (NHTG)) and one control group (traditional instruction). Each group included 23 participants." (p. 4) 2) "They were randomly divided into two experimental groups, namely TPSTG (n = 24) and NHTG (n = 24) and one control group (n = 24)." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: The paper explicitly states that individual students (selected from a pool of 90 at a single private English institute) were randomly allocated to one of three conditions. This is student-level randomisation within one institute, not randomisation of intact classes or schools to conditions. The intervention (cooperative learning techniques for speaking practice) is a classroom group-instruction method, not a one-to-one personal tutoring intervention, so the tutoring exception described in the ERCT standard does not apply. There is no evidence that pre-existing intact classes were randomised as whole units. Criterion C is not met because randomisation occurred at the individual student level, and no valid tutoring exception applies.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • The study used a researcher-designed oral task and a generic rubric, not a widely recognised standardised exam.
    • "Two oral tasks were used in this study as pretest and posttest. The tasks containing paired dialogs were designed to assess the fluency competence of the learners with regard to the linguistic characteristics." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Two oral tasks were used in this study as pretest and posttest. The tasks containing paired dialogs were designed to assess the fluency competence of the learners with regard to the linguistic characteristics." (p. 5) 2) "The first oral task that the learners undertook as a pretest was to inquire about the partners' favorite musician or football player, and the second oral task was to inquire about their partners' opinions regarding television programs." (p. 5) 3) "A scoring rubric, adapted from authentic assessment for English Language Learners developed by O'Malley and Pierce (2005) was used for the purpose of grading. This rubric for grading of the speaking fluency ability of oral tasks was a 1–4 rating scale..." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: The outcome measure was a pair of custom-designed oral dialogue tasks, scored with a generic authentic assessment rubric adapted from a textbook (O'Malley & Pierce, 2005). This is not a widely recognised, standardised exam-based assessment (e.g. a national or state-wide test); it was designed specifically by the researchers for this study's speaking topics. The Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT) mentioned elsewhere was used only to establish group homogeneity, not as the outcome measure. Criterion E is not met because the primary outcome assessment was a custom oral task with a generic rubric, not a standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • Tracking from intervention start to the posttest spanned only about nine weeks, well short of a full academic term.
    • "Over the eight-week study duration... One week after the last treatment session, all participants undertook the oral fluency post-test."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Next, all participants undertook an oral fluency pre-test prior to either an eight-week treatment intervention or control phase." (Abstract) 2) "One week after the last treatment session, all participants undertook the oral fluency post-test." (Abstract) 3) "At the beginning of the course, the first task was performed as the pretest, and the second task as the posttest at the end of the semester (after 8 weeks)." (p. 5) 4) "(3) The time allocated to the instruction was so limited." (p. 10, Limitations) Detailed Analysis: The intervention ran for 8 weeks, with the posttest administered one week after the last treatment session, giving a total interval of roughly nine weeks (approximately two months) from intervention start to outcome measurement. This is shorter than the one full academic term (approximately 3-4 months) required by the ERCT standard. The authors themselves acknowledge the limited instructional time as a limitation of the study. Criterion T is not met because the interval from intervention start to measurement was approximately two months, short of a full academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group's size, baseline scores, and business -as-usual instructional activities are clearly documented.
    • "Students in the control group received traditional teacher-fronted instruction throughout the classroom time... After transmitting the required knowledge, the teacher asked some of the students to answer the exercises individually." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The teaching materials and activities in the control group were based on the traditional techniques, which involved mainly the Grammar-Translation technique. In addition, the traditional teaching method in this study also included individual learning, as opposed to the cooperative leaning in the experimental groups." (p. 5) 2) "Students in the control group received traditional teacher-fronted instruction throughout the classroom time. In this class, the teacher began each new reading passage by reading it aloud and then translating each sentence into Persian." (p. 5) 3) "Table 2 shows that the TPSTG and NHTG learners' mean score on the pretest equaled 11.54 and 11.89, respectively, and the CG learners' mean score was 12.08." (p. 6; Table 2: CG N=24, Mean=12.08, SD=1.99) 4) "No new strategy was given to control group." (p. 6) Detailed Analysis: The paper describes the control group's size (n = 24), its baseline (pretest) performance with descriptive statistics, and the specific business-as-usual instructional activities it received (Grammar- Translation, teacher-fronted, individual exercises) using the same eight lessons as the treatment groups. This level of detail allows the reader to assess comparability of the control group at baseline and confirms no cooperative-learning treatment was applied to it. Criterion D is met because the control group's size, baseline characteristics, and instructional conditions are clearly documented.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Randomisation occurred among individual students at a single institute, not among schools.
    • "Then, they were randomly divided into three equal groups including two experimental groups... and one control group (traditional instruction)." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The population of the study was comprised of 90 English learners... studying English for about 3 years at a private English language institute." (p. 4) 2) "Then, they were randomly divided into three equal groups including two experimental groups (Think-pair share technique group (TPSTG) and Numbered heads technique group (NHTG)) and one control group (traditional instruction)." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: The study was conducted entirely within a single private English language institute, and the unit of randomisation was the individual student, not the school/institute. There is no indication that multiple schools/institutes were recruited and randomised to conditions. Criterion S is not met because the study used a single institute with student-level randomisation, not school-level randomisation.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The same research team designed, delivered, and assessed the intervention with no independent evaluators mentioned.
    • "The researcher used the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT) as the first instrument of the study." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The researcher used the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT) as the first instrument of the study." (p. 5) 2) "In order to find out if cooperative learning has any significant effect on increasing the students' speaking fluency ability, participants' voices in the classroom were recorded; thereby their performance on the oral tasks was transcribed carefully..." (p. 5) 3) Author details list only the three named authors, affiliated with English/TEFL departments, with no mention of an external evaluation agency or blinded test administrators. (p. 11, Author details) Detailed Analysis: Throughout the Methods and Data collection sections, the singular "the researcher" administered the placement test, and the same author team appears to have designed the cooperative-learning materials, delivered or supervised the teaching, recorded participants, and transcribed and scored the outcome data. No independent, third-party evaluation team or blinded administrators are described anywhere in the paper. Criterion I is not met because there is no evidence of independent conduct separate from the authors who designed the intervention.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • Since criterion T is not met and the study duration was only about nine weeks, criterion Y cannot be met.
    • "Over the eight-week study duration, the two treatment groups were each engaged in different cooperative learning approaches..." (Abstract)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Over the eight-week study duration, the two treatment groups were each engaged in different cooperative learning approaches either Numbered heads or Think-pair-share while the control group was engaged in conventional teacher-centered learning activities." (Abstract) 2) "One week after the last treatment session, all participants undertook the oral fluency post-test." (Abstract) Detailed Analysis: Per the ERCT standard's specific instruction for criterion Y, since criterion T (Term Duration) was not met, criterion Y is automatically not met. Independently, the total tracked period (approximately nine weeks) is far short of 75% of an academic year (~9-10 months). Criterion Y is not met because the tracked interval was only about two months, and criterion T was already not met.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • Both treatment and control groups received the same lessons and class time; no additional resources were given to the intervention groups, so the balance requirement is trivially satisfied.
    • "During 8 weeks, eight lessons (each contained one reading passage and several tasks and activities) from senior high school English book were taught to both groups; however, different techniques of teaching were employed in these two groups." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "During 8 weeks, eight lessons (each contained one reading passage and several tasks and activities) from senior high school English book were taught to both groups; however, different techniques of teaching were employed in these two groups." (p. 5) 2) "Students in the control group received traditional teacher-fronted instruction throughout the classroom time." (p. 5) 3) "No new strategy was given to control group." (p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Applying the ERCT decision tree for criterion B: the treatment groups (TPSTG, NHTG) and the control group (CG) all received the same eight lessons from the same textbook, over the same eight-week period and the same amount of classroom time. The only difference was the instructional technique used (cooperative learning activities versus teacher-fronted Grammar-Translation instruction with individual exercises); no extra class time, materials, or budget were allocated to the treatment groups beyond the standard curriculum delivery. Because no additional time or resources were introduced by the intervention (EXTRA_RESOURCES_PRESENT = false), the balance requirement is trivially satisfied. Criterion B is met because the intervention involved no additional instructional time, materials, or budget relative to the control group.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No evidence of an independent replication of this specific study by a different research team was found in the paper or via external search.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) The paper cites its own earlier and related works by the same lead author, e.g. "Namaziandost, E., Hosseini, E., & Utomo, D. W. (2020)... Cogent Arts and Humanities" and "Namaziandost, E., Neisi, L., Kheryadi, Nasri, M., & Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. (2019). Enhancing oral proficiency through cooperative learning among intermediate EFL learners..." (References, p. 12), which are prior work by the same author team, not independent replications of this study. 2) The paper also cites "Alipour, A., & Barjesteh, H. (2017). Effects of incorporating cooperative learning strategies (think-pair-share and numbered heads) on fostering the EFL learners' speaking fluency." (References, p. 11), a different-author study using a similar design, but this study predates the current 2020 paper and is therefore a precursor/related work rather than an independent replication of this specific study's findings. Detailed Analysis: A fresh internet search (2026) for independent replications of this exact study (Namaziandost, Homayouni & Rahmani, 2020, on Numbered Heads/Think-Pair- Share for EFL speaking fluency) again did not locate a peer-reviewed study by a different research team that reproduced this specific trial's design, sample, and findings in a different context. Search results turned up numerous conceptually related but non-replicating studies (e.g. Pasaribu on Numbered Heads Together for junior high speaking engagement; various think-pair- share and cooperative-learning speaking studies), none of which reproduce this specific study's design, sample, and measurement instruments with a different research team. The related Alipour & Barjesteh (2017) study cannot serve as a replication since it was published before the current paper. No other independent confirmation of this specific study was identified. Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific study was found.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only speaking fluency was assessed, not all main subjects, and criterion E (a prerequisite) was not met.
    • "A scoring rubric... was used for the purpose of grading. This rubric for grading of the speaking fluency ability of oral tasks was a 1–4 rating scale which provides simple descriptions for vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, fluency, and interaction." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The current study investigated the impact of using two cooperative learning strategies on the development of oral English language fluency among Iranian intermediate EFL learners." (Abstract) 2) "A scoring rubric... was used for the purpose of grading. This rubric for grading of the speaking fluency ability of oral tasks was a 1–4 rating scale which provides simple descriptions for vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, fluency, and interaction." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Per the standard's instructions, criterion A requires criterion E to be met as a prerequisite; since criterion E (standardised exam) was not met, criterion A cannot be met. Independently, the study measured only English speaking fluency (via a custom oral task) and did not assess any other main academic subjects (e.g. mathematics, science), nor does it provide a rationale for a specialised-subject exception. Criterion A is not met because criterion E was not met and only a single, non-standardised speaking measure was used.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Tracking stopped one week after the intervention ended, with no follow-up toward graduation, and criterion Y was not met.
    • "One week after the last treatment session, all participants undertook the oral fluency post-test." (Abstract)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "One week after the last treatment session, all participants undertook the oral fluency post-test." (Abstract) 2) "(2) The population was limited to 72 people. Therefore, this cannot be generalized either." (p. 10, Limitations - no mention of any longer-term or follow-up tracking) Detailed Analysis: Per the standard's instructions, since criterion Y (Year Duration) was not met, criterion G cannot be met either. Independently, the paper shows data collection ending one week after the last treatment session, with no description of any further follow-up, and certainly no tracking of participants through to graduation from their educational stage. A fresh internet search (2026) for follow-up publications by Namaziandost, Homayouni, or Rahmani tracking this same cohort of 72 private- institute learners toward graduation did not locate any such paper; the authors' other publications (e.g. on vocabulary learning, reading comprehension, flipped classrooms) use different samples and outcomes rather than continuing to track this cohort. No follow-up publications tracking this same cohort were identified. Criterion G is not met because tracking stopped shortly after the intervention with no continuation toward graduation, and no follow-up publications were found.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • No pre-registration of the study protocol, registry link, or registration date is mentioned anywhere in the paper.
    • Relevant Quotes: No quotes referencing a trial registry, protocol pre-registration, or registration ID (e.g. ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov) were found anywhere in the Abstract, Methods, Results, Discussion, or Funding sections of the paper. Detailed Analysis: The paper contains a "Funding" statement ("The authors received no direct funding for this research") and standard author/affiliation details, but at no point does it mention a pre-registered protocol, hypotheses, or analysis plan published before data collection began. A fresh internet search (2026) for a registry entry corresponding to this study (by title, authors, or DOI) did not locate any pre-registration record on ClinicalTrials.gov, OSF, ISRCTN, or similar registries. Criterion P is not met because there is no evidence of pre-registration in the paper or in external registries.