Exploring the Gap Between Grammar Knowledge and Written Production in Chinese Senior High EFL Classrooms: A Proceduralisation Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62051/yqb0nc55Keywords:
Grammar knowledge; Written production; EFL classrooms; Proceduralisation; Skill acquisition theory; Second language writing.Abstract
This paper investigates the continuous discrepancy between knowledge of declarative grammar and written production in Chinese senior high school English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. According to the theory of cognitive skill acquisition and the shift from declarative to procedural knowledge, this paper investigates why learners may have difficulty applying explicitly learned grammatical rules in spontaneous written production. Form-oriented teaching can help students learn the grammar explicitly, but many students are still unable to apply this knowledge correctly and flexibly in extended writing. Based on the above analysis, some traditional teaching methods focus on isolated grammar drills and offer fewer opportunities for extended, meaningful practice that supports proceduralisation. In addition, this paper will also examine how prompted output and suitable writing tasks can help learners notice deficiencies in their interlanguage and gradually reorganise their grammatical knowledge. Grammar learning can be viewed as a process of proceduralisation in this paper, and explicit rules gradually turn into more automatic language use; therefore, pedagogical suggestions for classroom teaching are proposed. Integrated task-based writing activities can help learners gradually internalise the explicit grammatical rules in their writing through practice.
Downloads
References
[1] Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369 406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369
[2] DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1 18). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.002
[3] Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91 113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586953
[4] Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327 369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
[5] Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97 114). Oxford University Press.
[6] Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3 25). Multilingual Matters.
[7] Spada, N. (1997). Form focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73 87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012799
[8] McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning (pp.133 153). Edward Arnold.
[9] Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27 57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27
[10] DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195 221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002040
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Transactions on Social Science, Education and Humanities Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
