Eloy Romero Muñoz, I share with you the following open access articles for your consideration.
Hassani, M. T., & Tahmase, F. (2014). Investigating the effect of inductive and deductive grammar instruction and input enhancement on Iranian EFL learners’ grammar achievement. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies, 2(4). https://journals.iau.ir/article_533308_cb4b4b2e934d4802e66449bf86cd6446.pdf
Maehara, Y. (2008). The effectiveness of learner-centered grammar teaching. Journal of Foreign Language Education, 5, 115-143. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/145720714.pdf
Moralishvili, S. (2018). Augmented Reality in Foreign Language Learning. Retrieved on September 26th. ejournals.atsu.ge/HENTI2015/eJournal/Papers/MoralishviliSophio.pdf
Nazari, N. (2013). The effect of implicit and explicit grammar instruction on learners’ achievements in receptive and productive modes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 156-162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042813000529
Pirasteh, P. (2014). The effectiveness of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on learning grammar by Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1422-1427. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814026524
Junaid, R. (2014). English Language Teaching Methods: State of the Art in Grammar Instruction. Jurnal Ethical Lingua, 1(1), 1-10. repository.uncp.ac.id/38/5/UJI%20SIMILARITY_ENGLISH%20LANGUAGE%20TEACHING%20METHODS_%20State%20of%20the%20Art%20in%20Grammar%20Instruction.pdf
Sharafi, M., & Sardareh, S. A. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL students’ L2 grammar learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 102-120. www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/viewFile/291/pdf291
Taki, S., & Amini, N. (2017). Evaluating ELT materials: A comparison between traditional materials and mobile apps. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 5(20), 59-78. https://journals.iau.ir/article_595901_f605e493dcc7b4819d4d987caa5a7a21.pdf
The articles you sent me are using Murphy, mostly as a basis for their pretest/postests. Maehara (2008) takes Murphy's descriptions of wil / be oging to a little bit at face value. I was wondering if there were some experiments that used Murphy vs another approach, experiments that I suspect would show that Murphy may not facilitate language learning as much as its commercial success might lead us to believe.