Measuring the impact of written corrective feedback (WCF): The methodological ins and outs

Abstract

The interest in the study of written corrective feedback (WCF) has led to the identification of two controversial areas: the impact of the different types of WCF and the methods used in the studies. The present study aims to contribute to the clarification of the latter by examining the methods section of recently published research articles. Its objective is to review the current state of the experimental research designs in WCF studies. For this, eleven published studies were randomly selected and analyzed considering as inclusion criteria that they were empirical studies published in journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus during the last eight years. The findings have been grouped into two categories: research designs and data analysis procedures. Regarding research design, there is a growing concern for ecological validity, the inclusion of delayed post-tests, and the implementation of training on feedback types for students. Concerning data analysis, the choice of a specific formula for error quantification was identified as a crucial decision researchers interested in WCF must make. It is hoped that this study will guide future research, ensuring a solid methodological design in line with current publications in prestigious journals. By following the trends identified in recent prestigious research, it is more likely that research can address the concerns surrounding the effectiveness of different types of WCF.