AI Language Companion
Learn any of 11 languages with an AI tutor that adapts to your level — from absolute beginner to advanced.
Open Ask your AI tutor from the dashboard anytime. Get real back-and-forth that adapts grammar to your CEFR level and practices rules you've studied.
Write characters and words with ghost-text guides. Vision OCR grades each stroke in real time.
Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking, Grammar, and Vocabulary — each with multiple exercise modes.
SRS flashcards with confidence-based scheduling. Daily Mix interleaves vocab, grammar, and translation in one session for stronger retention.
Grammar drills scale based on your streaks and confidence. The app meets you where you are.
Gamify mode — XP, levels, streaks, badges, daily challenges, and mascot avatars. Study mode — clean, focused learning without gamification.
Confidence-calibrated metacognitive monitoring, interleaved practice (Daily Mix), self-explanation prompts, and adaptive difficulty — research-backed techniques proven to strengthen long-term retention.
Nuri’s exercises borrow ideas from cognitive science and second-language research. Below is a curated (not exhaustive) reading list — independent work, not endorsements, and not a one-to-one map to every screen in the app.
Spacing reviews in time improves durable retention; the “testing effect” shows retrieval practice also strengthens memory — both are common SRS ingredients.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 47, 1–36.
Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 63–147.
Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 710–756.
Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2017). Does retrieval practice enhance learning and transfer relative to restudy for term-definition facts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(3), 278–292.
Sound-alike “keywords” plus interactive imagery remain one of the best-supported vocabulary mnemonics in classroom-oriented reviews.
Raugh, M. R., & Atkinson, R. C. (1975). A mnemonic method for learning a second-language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 1–16.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Delaney, H. D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 61–91.
Mixing categories or problem types (vs. blocking) supports inductive learning and discrimination; effects depend on material similarity and design.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35(6), 481–498.
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592.
Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 145(11), 1029–1052.
Prompting learners to explain examples or text while studying improves understanding and transfer in many domains.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. H., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.
Judgments of what you know (and calibrating them) are central to self-regulated study; related work informs confidence-based scheduling ideas.
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490–517.
Tracking mastery over skills and choosing the next exercise accordingly is the backbone of many adaptive tutors and mastery-style systems.
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253–278.
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(2), 105–154.
Meta-analyses and reviews generally find benefits when learners receive feedback that helps them notice and revise linguistic forms.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). John Benjamins. Volume information.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.
Large-scale syntheses ask how much second-language instruction helps overall, and how to aggregate evidence across studies — complementary to cognitive lab work on memory.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. John Benjamins. Book information (includes meta-analytic chapters such as Russell & Spada on corrective feedback).
Laboratory training on difficult contrasts, with variability across talkers and contexts, supports adult L2 speech perception and can transfer toward production.
Lively, S. E., Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(3), 1242–1256.
McCandliss, B. D., Fiez, J. A., Protopapas, A., Conway, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2002). Success and failure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model of plasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(2), 89–108.
Bradlow, A. R., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D. B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977–985.
Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K. (1995). Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(1), 553–562.
Samuel, A. G., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Perceptual learning for speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1207–1218.
Simultaneous listen-and-repeat practice is widely used in L2 listening and pronunciation work; empirical studies report gains especially for lower-level learners.
Hamada, Y. (2016). Shadowing: Who benefits and how? Uncovering a booming EFL teaching technique for listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 35–52.
Kadota, S. (2019). Shadowing as a Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.
Combining verbal and pictorial (or auditory) channels, while managing cognitive load, supports comprehension; retrieval practice further boosts durable memory.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463.