Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how principles from cognitive psychology, particularly transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) and skill acquisition theory, can inform the design of grammar practice in second language (L2) instruction. While grammar instruction often emphasizes declarative knowledge, enabling learners to use grammatical forms accurately and fluently in spontaneous communication requires a shift toward procedural knowledge developed through meaningful, repeated practice. Drawing on TAP, we argue that grammar activities should simulate the cognitive demands of real-world language use to promote transfer. We review key distinctions in the transfer of learning across skills, contexts, and tasks and highlight how practice conditions such as task modality, communicative relevance, and cognitive complexity affect the transferability of grammatical knowledge. We also discuss the role of “desirable difficulties” in optimizing grammar practice, proposing that varied, distributed, and strategically scaffolded activities enhance retrieval and fluency. The article concludes by describing two classroom-based studies, which demonstrate how TAP-informed practice can support learners' oral grammatical accuracy. We contend that L2 teachers should reconsider traditional grammar exercises in favour of communicative, context-rich tasks that better prepare learners for authentic use. Our aim is to bridge the gap between theory and classroom practice to improve the effectiveness of L2 grammar instruction. Cet article explore la manière dont les principes de la psychologie cognitive, en particulier le traitement approprié au transfert (TAT) et la théorie de l’acquisition des compétences, peuvent informer la conception de la pratique de la grammaire dans l’enseignement d’une langue seconde (L2). Alors que l’enseignement de la grammaire met souvent l’accent sur les connaissances déclaratives, permettre aux apprenants d’utiliser les formes grammaticales avec précision et fluidité dans la communication spontanée nécessite un changement vers des connaissances procédurales développées à travers une pratique répétée et axée sur le sens. En nous inspirant du TAT, nous soutenons que les activités grammaticales devraient simuler les exigences cognitives de l’utilisation de la langue dans des situations réelles afin de promouvoir le transfert. Nous passons en revue les principales distinctions en matière de transfert de l’apprentissage entre les compétences, les contextes et les tâches, et nous soulignons comment les conditions de pratique, telles que la modalité de la tâche, la pertinence communicative et la complexité cognitive affectent la transférabilité des connaissances grammaticales. Nous discutons également du rôle des « difficultés souhaitables » dans l’optimisation de la pratique de la grammaire, en proposant que des activités variées, ordonnées et stratégiquement encadrées améliorent la récupération et la fluidité. L’article se termine par la description de deux études menées en classe, qui démontrent comment la pratique informée par le TAT peut soutenir la précision des apprenants en grammaire orale. Nous soutenons que les enseignants de L2 devraient reconsidérer les exercices traditionnels de grammaire en faveur de tâches communicatives riches en contexte, qui préparent mieux les apprenants à un usage authentique de la langue. Notre objectif est de combler le fossé entre la théorie et la pratique en classe afin d’améliorer l’efficacité de l’enseignement de la grammaire en L2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.186 | 0.066 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".