This study explores the development of professionalism in using Educational Technology (EdTech) among Korean elementary English teachers amid the increasing integration of technology in English education. Employing the Grounded Theory methodology, the study involved in-depth interviews with nine Korean elementary English teachers experienced in using EdTech. It aims to identify their EdTech experiences, the elements constituting EdTech professionalism, and its developmental process. The study reveals that teachers’ EdTech professionalism encompasses a proactive approach towards technology, continuous professional growth based on practice and reflection, and adaptation of teaching methods in response to evolving technologies and learner needs. It highlights the importance of teachers’ self-directed approach, collaboration with other teachers, and the integration of pedagogical, content, and technological knowledge into their English teaching. The findings have implications for teacher education and the advancement of EdTech-utilized English education, suggesting new processes and directions for developing elementary English teachers’ professionalism in the rapidly evolving landscape of educational technology.

Errors with be, whether whether whether whether whether whether whether whether omission omission omission omission omission omission omission omission (e.g., John happy) or overuse (i.e., be-insertion; e.g., John is love Mary), have received particular attention in L2 acquisition studies exploring L1 transfer. This study investigates such errors in the context of L3 acquisition, focusing on L1 transfer. L1-Chinese (n = 34) and L1-Russian (n = 34) children with L2 Korean completed an elicitation production task designed to explore their use of English be. The study resulted in two main findings. First, L1-Russian children showed more omission errors than proficiency-matching L1-Chinese children, possibly due to an L1 transfer given that copula in Russian are dropped in the present tense. Second, L1-Chinese learners used be-insertion more frequently than proficiency-matching L1-Russian children, possibly due to using be for more functions (as a topic marker and an inflectional morpheme), as other research has shown for L2-English learners with topic-prominent L1s. Based on the findings, the study discusses some pedagogical implications.