The study investigated how task types such as input or output could affect Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary learning at both short- and long-term periods after treatment. Forty two college students in Korea were randomly assigned to one of the four tasks. Based on Involvement Load Hypothesis, each task induced the same or different involvement loads: Read without glossary (Input), Gap with glossary (Input & Output), Gap without glossary (Input & Output), and Sentence and write (Output). Receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge was measured right after the treatment and a month later. The output-oriented tasks were found to be more effective than the input-oriented tasks regardless of type of vocabulary knowledge. The current study concluded that modalities such as input or output other than task-induced involvement load can contribute to Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. The pedagogical discussion will be made at the conclusion.

While many scholars paid attention to L2 learner beliefs about grammar learning and error correction, there has been little research on both teacher and learner beliefs about types of grammar instructions in Korean EFL contexts. This study aimed to investigate the beliefs about types of instructions as well as grammar learning and error correction using a questionnaire adapted from Jean and Simard (2011). A total of four hundred and eighty-seven participants in Korea participated in the study and were divided into five groups: three teacher subgroups (non-native Korean high school, non-native Korean college, and native college) and two student subgroups (high school and college). The participants in general highly valued accuracy in L2 learning, but they disliked grammar learning or teaching. While both students and teachers believed that grammar instructions such as discovery learning, and mechanical practice could be useful in grammar learning, Korean teachers reported more positive views on grammar instructions than Korean students. The majority of the participants reported that they had a tendency to prefer error correction in the written production rather than in the spoken one. The results also revealed opinion gaps among the subgroups. The pedagogical and theoretical implications will be discussed.

The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) to find context-specific motivational factors in Korean college contexts within the framework of Gardner’s integrativeness and Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System; (2) to examine how those motivational factors explain motivated behavior. For this purpose, motivation data by 787 students was analyzed. The factor analysis revealed eight factors in Korean context: promotional instrumentality, bad learning experience, ought-to L2 self, integrativeness, elusive ideal L2 self, ethnocentrism, intercultural avoidance, and international posture. The regression analysis showed that four motivational factors, bad learning experience, ought-to L2 self, elusive ideal L2 self, and promotional instrumentality, significantly explained the participants’ motivated behavior. The findings indicate that there existed context-specific motivational factors which could better explain success of L2 in Korean EFL college contexts. The theoretical and pedagogical implications were provided at the conclusion.

The purpose of this study was to study how L2 motivations in both Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System and Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model were related to intrinsic and extrinsic subscales in the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) in Korean college contexts. This study investigated the relationships among the motivational variables by the use of the correlation method and the effects of L2 motivations on motivated behavior through multiple regression analysis. The findings showed Gardner’s (1985) integrativeness and ideal L2 self were strongly correlated with the more self-determined types of motivations, while L2 learning experience and ought-to L2 self were associated with the less self-determined ones in the self-determination theory. In addition, Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System and the extrinsic motivation subscales, identified regulation and external regulation, explained Korean college students’ motivated behavior better than Gardner’s (1985) integrativeness. The theoretic discussions are made at the conclusion.

The recent theory in L2 motivation has proposed viewing motivation as possible selves such as ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, and L2 learning experiences to complement the limitation of traditional socio-educational model. The purpose of the study was to test the traditional integrativeness and L2 motivational self system in Korean EFL college contexts and how those motivations have developed over time through a cross-sectional study. A total of five hundred fifty five college students taking English as elective in Korea completed the motivation questionnaires. The results showed that both traditional integrative motivations and L2 motivational self system have increased positively over time at college. The post-hoc test revealed that the senior students developed significantly higher motivations than the freshmen in integrative orientation, attitudes towards learning English, and criterion measures. L2 motivational self system such as ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, and L2 learning experiences better predicted motivated behaviors than integrative motivations even though both had significant correlations. Theoretic discussions were made for L2 motivations.

This study aims to examine the relationships between the learners' task preferences (input vs. output, deductive vs. inductive, individual vs. group work) and task performances (noticing, successful uptake, and achievement in grammar instructions). The findings showed that task performances were influenced by L2 learners’ instructional preferences. The input or inductive preferences were negatively correlated with the performance in input-oriented instruction, while they performed well when the task type matched their preference, for example, output preference with output instruction. In addition, the low levels preferred the input or deductive styles while the high levels preferred the output-based instruction. Therefore, we should take into account L2 learners’ learning preferences or styles when deciding the types of instructions in grammar teaching.