In the field of Korean as a foreign language (KFL) pragmatics, current scholarship documents a need for change in regards to speech styles as dynamic features (Byon, 2007; Chang, 2014; Cook, 2011; Jung, 2015; Park, 2012; Strauss & Eun, 2005; Yoon, 2010). However, speech styles are often taught at a pragmalinguistic level as a grammar point and in a textbook or in a classroom sociopragmatics presentation is limited to static contextual features such as one’s social status and/or age. Moreover, even though the honorifics system and speech styles are perceived as daunting by even the most advanced KFL learners (Brown, 2010, 2013; Byon, 2004, 2007; Choo, 1999; Shon, 1999; Yoon, 2010), the majority of KFL pragmatics research on speech styles focuses on students’ use and production of pragmatics features rather than focusing on the pedagogical application (see Byon, 2015; Song & Pyun, 2011). Instructors’ beliefs on teaching pragmatics and the background to their beliefs are also overlooked. This study is composed of three interrelated projects and grounded in pragmatics instructional studies, Pragmatic Consciousness Raising (PCR) (Rose 1994, 1999), multiliteracies pedagogy framework, and teachers’ beliefs research. The purpose of this mixed-method study is to understand KFL educators’ views on pragmatics instruction and the current state of pragmatics instruction in KFL programs at tertiary level institutions; the next step is to design and implement pragmatics lesson plans that are more practical and adaptable to current KFL programs. To this end, the research questions are 1) What is the current state of pragmatics instruction in KFL?; 2) What is KFL instructors’ cognition (Borg, 2006) of pragmatics instruction?; 3) Is speech styles instruction based on a multiliteracies pedagogy framework effective and what are the students’ perception toward the lessons? The research questions were answered through a survey and interviews of KFL educators as well as KFL students’ in-class and homework assignments and surveys before, during, and after the implementation of new lesson plans. The findings showed that the KFL field experienced positive changes such as collaboration with other instructors and curriculum development endeavors based on current theories and approaches in the field. However, similar issues and challenges to other less commonly taught language (LCTL) programs as well as their own unique challenges such as (over-)qualified teaching staff and an absence of equity and advocacy for instructors and programs still remained. The survey responses and interviews showed that both the administrators and instructors in KFL programs believe that pragmatics competence is crucial to developing proficiency in a foreign language and that pragmatics should be taught in class. The teachers’ own personal foreign language learning experiences were very influential in shaping their stated beliefs. However, it was also found that the teachers’ practices were based on their working definition of pragmatics rather than their espoused theories. In the classroom, textbooks provided the core element of curriculum and classroom practice, which the teachers thought contributed to persistently unsatisfactory approaches to pragmatics teaching. Drawing upon the survey and interview results, a series of instructional units, informed by PCR and multiliteracies pedagogy, was designed to be integrated into current textbook-oriented curricula and implemented in an upper elementary level Korean course. Contrary to the concerns of the interviewed KFL instructors, beginner-level students successfully participated and interacted meaningfully using authentic materials. The students showed development in metapragmatic awareness and in both pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics knowledge. In addition, the students exhibited positive attitudes toward the instructional units. Based on this evidence, this dissertation concludes with implications and future research recommendations for teacher professional development training design, KFL curriculum, teaching material design, and teacher cognition research.

Many researchers have explored teachers’ beliefs in literacy and found that teachers’ literacy beliefs affect their instructional practices in foreign language (FL) or second language (SL) classrooms. Researchers have demonstrated that teachers’ literacy beliefs and instructional practices are generally consistent. There have been many studies regarding teachers’ literacy beliefs and classroom instruction in the context of FL/SL and more recent studies on teachers’ literacy beliefs presenting an increasing interest in heritage language (HL) such as Spanish and Chinese. However, less is known about Korean language teachers’ literacy beliefs and practices in the mixed classroom of heritage and non-­‐heritage learners. This present study had two main purposes. First, it examined and described the literacy beliefs and instructional practices of a novice Korean language instructor, who struggled primarily with heritage learners in his teaching career. The second purpose was to seek an in-­‐depth view of a novice teacher’s literacy beliefs and practices toward two different student subgroups of heritage and non-­‐heritage learners in the same classroom. In addition, this study investigated incongruences between literacy beliefs and practices toward heritage and non-­‐heritage learners. In order to examine a novice Korean instructor’s literacy beliefs and practices toward Korean heritage learners and non-­‐heritage learners, this research employed a qualitative case study and collected data through a combination of a survey, semi-­‐structured interviews, and videotaped classroom observations. The Literacy Orientation Survey (LOS) and Taxonomy Of Techniques were adopted for a survey and classroom observation, respectively. The results of the current study indicated that the novice teacher of Korean has general literacy beliefs compatible with a constructivist orientation, which is a whole-­‐ language approach and one that promotes transformative learning. For most of the instructor’s literacy instruction in the classroom, his literacy beliefs appeared to be congruent with his practices toward KHLLs. The novice teacher promoted differentiated literacy instruction by giving separate, more challenging, or instruction more connected to everyday life in an effort to meet each individual learner’s needs in literacy. Acknowledging heritage learners as mediators and community builders who could potentially promote literacy skills, the participant presented a broader understanding of literacy and multiliteracies, such as cultural and digital literacy, beyond traditional skill-­‐ focused reading and writing. However, his overall literacy beliefs were incongruent with his instructional practices toward KFLLs because of frequent accommodations for less proficient learners through more traditional or eclectic activities. This incongruence and distinctive literacy instruction toward two different learner subgroups were explained by several factors: university policy on teaching and learning, his educational background and teaching experiences, and the low proficiency of the Korean language learners. This study of a novice teacher’s literacy beliefs toward different learner groups suggests that the embracing of comprehensive and constructivist approaches to literacy instruction and curriculum is only possible when pre-­‐ and in-­‐service teachers are aware of their own premises or propositions about literacy beliefs and instructions. The findings generated by this study can serve as a good starting point to guide FL/HL teachers to professional growth and expand the field of HL literacy studies in the future.