Abstract
Error gravity is an important feature that has recently gained attention in writing research, based on suggestions that it contributes to the calculation of accuracy metrics in writing performance and the selection of instructional methods. However, the findings from error gravity studies have been inconsistent. Our systematic review critically examined the research methodologies employed in error gravity studies, focusing on three key aspects: task conditions, error categories, and assessment criteria. Of the 92 studies retrieved from two databases, 17 studies were selected after excluding duplicates and studies that did not align with the purpose of this review. Six studies were further analyzed following a coding process. The findings revealed that writing studies utilizing error gravity can be broadly classified into two types: one focusing on one type of error in a sentence, and the other aiming to calculate the score of a written accuracy measure. Furthermore, a detailed analysis indicated inconsistencies in the three methodological settings, making it difficult to compare and synthesize the research results. This study also proposed improvements for each of the three key aspects to further advance error gravity research.
