The field of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) has recently witnessed a renewed interest in pronunciation; nevertheless, this interest has been mostly directed toward pronunciation instruction even though learners’ instructional gains are heavily dependent on their attitudes and motivations. Thus, this study aimed to examine the construct validity of learners’ attitudes and motivations for pronunciation (LAMP) inventory in Iranian EFL academic context and investigate Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes and motivations regarding teaching and learning English pronunciation. Accordingly, the LAMP inventory was administered to 364 Iranian English-major undergraduates. The result of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the 8-factor LAMP model fit the Iranian EFL context. In terms of English-major learners’ attitudes, findings revealed that although they had highly positive cognitive and conative attitudes toward pronunciation instruction, they were heavily influenced by negative affective filters acting as a hindrance to their progress. Regarding motivations, English-major learners were mostly influenced by intrinsic and curiosity drives. Nevertheless, contrary to some previous findings, the majority of the respondents showed integrativeness and strove for native-like pronunciation. Therefore, the results imply that syllabus designers and instructors for English-major learners need to place stronger emphasis on pronunciation instruction via challenging, meaning-oriented tasks and computerized methodologies. Manuscript profile

This study investigated the effects of planned focus-on-form instruction (pFFI) on developing oral grammatical accuracy in Iranian English EFL learners. To this end, 60 lower-intermediate EFL learners studying English in a private English language institute in Tehran, Iran, were randomly assigned to two classes. Both classes received a task-based instruction on grammatical points elicited in oral production of English sentences with the only difference that one class, the experimental group (N=30) had a pFFI instruction (i.e., the target grammatical structures selected in advance), and the other class, the control group (N = 30), had a task-based instruction without any focus on planned grammatical structures. Learners’ oral performance was observed in their answers to pictorial cues in the pretest and posttest. The results of the study revealed that although both groups significantly improved in their oral performance in terms of grammatical accuracy, pFFI instruction was more effective on the experimental group since they significantly outperformed the control group. Manuscript profile