English language teaching in Korea, as well as much of the English teaching community, has predominantly been guided by teaching methodologies based on a monolingual approach, through which strict use of the target language is used (Auerbach, 1993, 2016; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011). A monolingual or English-only (EO) approach is rooted in the theory of the direct method, which stipulates that stringent use of the target language must be maintained and any artifacts of learners’ L1 be eliminated completely (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). Advocates for this approach argue that complete immersion in the target language provides the best learning environment. Johnson and Swain (1994) also add that the driving principle behind immersion in the target language is to provide learners with the maximum amount of comprehensible input to ensure optimal acquisition. Jacobson and Faltis (1990) support this theory by stating that one of the primary reasons for the need to maintain a strict separation between languages is to prevent any cross-contamination, which may inhibit students from fully internalizing a second language.

The theory behind an EO approach appears viable at face value, but its fault lies in the lack of consideration for the students’ and teachers’ identity and background knowledge. Although English alone is the primary focus with an EO approach and the use of any other languages in the classroom is limited or outright prohibited, it cannot fully remove a teacher’s or learner’s L1. According to Auerbach (1993), teaching English as a second language (L2) has been entrenched in an ideology that emphasizes the exclusive use of the target language, but the issue with this approach is that it attempts to erase individual learners’ own backgrounds. The attempt to remove L1 from the classroom may also have negative effects on teachers as well. As findings from a study by Tsagari and Giannikas (2018) show, some teachers, despite seeing value in using the L1, felt guilty about its use and believed using L1 somehow compromised their professional ability, ultimately restricting its use. This false sense of guilt is likely imposed by erroneous ideological norms that have persisted in English language teaching, through which continue to impede learners’ opportunities to benefit from the use of their L1. Cook (2003) maintains that second language learners generally access their L1 when processing the L2 because a student’s L1 is permanently in the learner’s mind. This means that a student’s L1 will play a role in their learning process regardless of whether it is used by the teacher or not, and therefore it should not be ignored or isolated. McMillan and Rivers (2011) assert that use of the learner’s L1 provides additional support that enables students to produce a higher quality of work as opposed to being restricted to using only the target language. McKay (2012) further supports this by affirming that a learner’s existing language knowledge is an integral part of their personal and social identity, and it is therefore important to preserve and allow access to that information. Essentially, it is impossible to entirely detach the learner from their L1 and the background knowledge it carries.

Research has shown that disregarding the student’s L1 could even potentially have adverse effects (Auerbach, 1993; Cummins, 2009). The knowledge that students possess in their L1 can allow them to better understand linguistic concepts and negotiate meaning with classmates or a teacher who shares the same L1. This existing background knowledge remains a valuable tool for bridging the divide between first and second languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011, 2013; Cook, 2001; Cummins, 2008). This is especially relevant in a Korean EFL setting where the majority of students, and many teachers, share a common L1. In a study conducted by Kim et al. (2016), 523 students from Korean universities were surveyed on their feelings about classes taught with an EMI. Results showed that 85% felt that L1 inclusion would benefit students when explaining difficult concepts, and 62.6% of the students did not participate in EMI classes willingly, citing lack of confidence in their English skills. Their participation in EMI classes was due simply to the school’s policy, and it appears that the need for L1 was critical to promote a positive learning environment.

Although the debate continues, acceptance of the student’s L1 has been well established in multiple EFL contexts. Brooks-Lewis (2009) found that the attitudes of learners in an EFL setting were “overwhelmingly positive” towards the inclusion of L1 in the classroom, and that they favored its use over complete erasure. In addition, many teachers with knowledge of their student’s L1 will adopt its use to some degree, which proves the teachers recognize the potential role L1 plays (Levine, 2003; Liu et al., 2004). Van der Meij and Zhao (2010) showed that both teachers and students who share a common L1 hold a positive view of codeswitching, through which L1 and the target language are used together to negotiate meaning and better understand the contents of the class. Findings in other studies (e.g., Kohi & Suvarna Lakshmi, 2020; Lee & Lo, 2017; Shabir, 2017; Tamimi Sa’d & Quadermazi, 2015; Tsagari & Giannikas, 2018; Yao, 2011) further confirm that teachers and students who share a common L1 hold positive attitudes towards the inclusion of L1. Ultimately, teachers and students recognize the integral nature of the learner’s L1 background and understand the evident value it holds.

The first language of EFL learners has been widely accepted by both teachers and students to be a viable tool helpful in the classroom. Mohebi and Alavi (2014) found that EFL teachers who utilized the students’ L1 did so for reasons including providing feedback, teaching vocabulary, explaining grammar, building a rapport with students and providing individual help, and general management of the class. Similarly, data collected by Kohi and Suvarna Lakshmi (2020) support that the use of L1 can be beneficial in providing detailed explanations of vocabulary or grammar, providing feedback, class management, and motivating learners. L1 inclusion is also purported to help limit student anxiety (Auerbach, 1993), to develop an environment conducive to student-centered instruction, as well as acknowledging a student’s sociocultural aspects (Sabir, 2017), and to build relationships between students and teachers (Inbar-Lourie, 2010; Marco & Lee, 2013; Yenice, 2018). Findings by Yao (2011) illustrate how a teacher’s use of L1 can help clarify task instruction. By helping students to understand the purpose and directions to completing a task through the learner’s L1, more energy could be focused on processing the task itself in the target language.

The purpose of utilizing the learner’s L1 provides its greatest benefit to students at the beginning stages of language learning. In the case of beginner-level students, reliance on limited L1 assistance has been shown to be especially beneficial (Kohi & Suvarna Lakshmi, 2020; Marco & Lee, 2013). Although advanced students still showed an appreciation for use of L1 to some degree as it helped increase comfort and better understand the content of the class (Tsagari & Giannikas, 2018), as pointed out by Lee and Lo (2017), advanced students were more accepting of an EO approach. This illustrates that the necessity for L1 gradually decreases as the learner improves their language skills. In this regard, the student’s L1 acts as scaffolding to help them achieve an adequate level of proficiency so that less and less reliance on L1 can be tolerated.

While the use of a student’s L1 can provide several potential benefits, it depends greatly on how the L1 is used and to what extent. Yenice (2018) cautions that students may become dependent on L1’s use if it becomes the dominant language in the class. Overdependence on the L1 may result in students stagnating and no longer moving beyond their current zone of proximal development. L1 should be used sparingly and for specific purposes, be it academic, affective, managerial, or social. However, there does not exist a singular rule for exactly how and when the L1 should be used and to what extent. As de la Campa and Nassaji (2009) make clear, the factors that influence the decision about when, how, and why L1 is used vary and may be influenced by personal beliefs about language learning and teaching, classroom setting, or school policies. Therefore, Tamimi Sa’d and Quadermazi (2015) caution that although the learners’ L1 can be a useful tool to facilitate language learning, it can become counterproductive when used inaccurately or inappropriately. Turnbull (2018) and Yenice (2018) echo this by stating that the use of L1 should be used to benefit students but warns that overreliance may potentially interfere with the overall objectives of the class. In a study conducted by Shabir (2017), student-teachers from various linguistic backgrounds agreed that while L1 is useful, specifically for academic and managerial purposes, it should be limited as much as possible so as to give learners maximum opportunities to use the target language. These caveats might appear as an argument for L1 erasure; however, this would be akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Clearly L1 is an element that cannot be erased and can be made use of; merely, the question remains as to how to implement it most effectively to achieve the results desired. An added layer of complexity is added to the question of how L1 can be more effectively applied when the context of learning shifts to an online learning environment.

Since 2020, the world has been afflicted by the COVID- 19 pandemic. The pandemic has had significant effects on how education has been conducted around the globe. In Korea, virtually all schools and universities closed, opting for online learning as an alternative for classes that could no longer be held in-person (Kalenzi & Yim, 2020). As a result, this shift from the physical classroom, where students and teachers met face-to-face, to an online classroom inordinately altered the way in which teachers and students interacted. Adjusting to the online classroom gave rise to many new difficulties that were faced by both teachers and students alike (Bidwell et al., 2020). As teachers and students learned to navigate the online learning environment, certain communicative subjects, such as EFL, may have faced increased difficulty. This increased difficulty may be a result of not only having to instruct students of the goals of the course through regular lessons, but also having to explain how to utilize online tools to participate in classes and complete and submit their assignments.

When the COVID-19 pandemic prompted schools to rapidly alter the mode through which classes were conducted, many teachers and students faced difficulties that continue to persist. In a study conducted by Bidwell et al. (2020), it was reported that students expressed a range of difficulties such as loss of motivation, incompatibility with the learning methods used, lack of classroom structure, and feeling overwhelmed by the idea of having to take an entire course online. Many teachers also echoed the sentiments of students, stating that they initially felt overwhelmed and frustrated, citing issues with class management, organizing and conveying the content of the class in a new way, and being able to connect with students. Many, if not all, of these issues fall into the categories of academic, affective, managerial, and social, which are often the reasons cited for utilizing L1 in the classroom. Clearly the use of L1 alone will not be the answer for all issues encountered in the online EFL classroom; however, it may be a useful tool to aid in helping both teachers and students to work more effectively within the digital landscape.

While the severity of effects brought on by the COVID- 19 pandemic may not last forever, new methods developed during this period will have lasting effects on how education is approached. As schools begin to resume in-person classes, the usefulness of blended learning and online learning environments remains a viable option, another tool to help teachers achieve their goals as educators. However, within the EFL context, based on the circumstances of interacting through online learning environments, questions arise about the efficacy of exclusive EO instruction. There are legitimate concerns about managing a consistent flow within a class while maintaining focus on the primary course goals. To this extent, it stands to reason that L1 inclusion may play a potential role, not only in ways which can be applied to in-person classes, but in helping students successfully interact in an online setting so they can maintain focus on the goals of the course.

The primary role of L1’s use as scaffolding to assist beginner-level students in an in-person classroom remains the same when used in an online classroom. Copeland and Franzese (2021) found that overall, students express a positive view of accepting technology, specifically using online virtual learning environments in an EFL context. However, an essential element of effectively implementing the use of online learning methods is that teachers effectively instruct students on how to navigate and use the online platforms they are working within so that classwork can be completed properly. The authors also acknowledge that by providing instruction in the target language, an added layer of difficulty may have existed; therefore, in this case L1 could potentially aid in providing clearer instructions. An essential role of L1 is to provide clear task instruction (de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009; Yao, 2011), especially in the case of beginner-level students. In order to effectively precipitate the required task, teachers must explain to students what must be done. In the case of English instruction, teachers must decide whether the instructions should be provided in the learner’s L1, so more focus can be spent on the desired task, or whether instructions provided in English are preferable, in which case there lies the potential for misunderstanding. Ultimately the decision remains up to the teacher; however, the potential for L1 to assist in explaining instructions remains.

Based on the literature review on the use of L1 in EFL environments and the instructor’s previous experience of teaching beginner-level classes, the instructor’s and students’ first language, Korean, was employed as one of the mediums of instruction and communication in four General English classes. One of the authors of this study taught those four classes at a four-year Korean university during the second semester of 2021. All four classes were for the beginner level, centering around improving speaking abilities through English presentations. This General Education English course is usually taken by students during the second semester of their freshman year, and the number of registered students for each class was 34 or 35. Around the time this research was conducted, all classes were operated online due to COVID-19; students were required to watch pre-recorded lecture videos for attendance each week and to attend live Zoom sessions every two weeks to do speaking activities together. They were also required to give a short (about two-minute) presentation after each unit of the textbook was finished and longer (about three-minute) presentations for the midterm and final; in total, six presentations were done by the students. One or two weeks after each presentation, the instructor held a Zoom session to provide oral feedback on students’ presentations except the first and final ones.

The instructor created three different approaches for the use of L1 depending on the types of teaching platforms: pre-recorded videos, Zoom sessions, and learning management system (LMS) and email. First of all, when the instructor recorded lecture videos, he first spoke in English and then verbally translated his English explanations into Korean. When there were Zoom sessions during which students practiced their speaking activities in groups or with the whole class, the use of English was mandated. Lastly, the instructor used mostly Korean when giving oral feedback to the students, posting announcements on the learning management system (LMS), and communicating with students via email or LMS message.

Participants in this study were students from the General English classes. Out of 139 registered students, 69 students have participated in the study by completing the survey questionnaire. Sixty-five respondents (94.2%) were freshmen, two (2.9%) juniors, and two (2.9%) seniors. About two thirds of the respondents (63.8%) were female students, and 36.2% were male students. The respondents’ fields of study varied, including Social Sciences (30.4%), Humanities (26.1%), Software (25.6%), Music and Arts (13%), Law (2.9%), Engineering (1.4%), and Math Education (1.4%). One hundred percent of the respondents replied that Korean is their first language.

All the respondents were students from beginner-level classes. According to the school policy, freshman students are required to take a mock TOEIC test, which acts as a placement test. The mock TOEIC test is administered approximately two weeks before their first semester starts. Beginner-level students are those whose placement test scores are lower than 450. However, to be more precise about the student English level, four questions were asked via the survey. The first one was about students’ self- reported English level. By adjusting the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), five levels (i.e., low beginner, beginner, intermediate, high intermediate, and advanced, which are equivalent to A1, A2, B1, B2, and C1 levels of the CEFR global scale respectively) were given as options to choose, and 23 (33.3%) respondents reported that they are the low beginner level (A1), 37 (53.6%) respondents the beginner level (A2), and 9 (13%) respondents the intermediate level (B1). The other three questions asked about students’ receptive and productive abilities. The result shows that students feel most difficult when speaking, followed by listening and reading. For example, in the reading and listening areas of English, 18.8% of the students reported that they had difficulty comprehending the English textbook on their own, and 32.9% reported that they had difficulty (30%) and strong difficulty (2.9%) understanding the instructor’s lectures in English. When it comes to productive skills, 50.7% of the respondents said that communicating in English was difficult (40.6%) or very difficult (10.1%). In summary, the student participants in this study perceived themselves as the beginner-level in general and appeared to be more proficient in the receptive areas of English, reading and listening, than in the productive area, speaking (See Figure 1).

A survey questionnaire was the primary source for the data of the study. Survey questions are divided into three parts. The first one is about the participants’ demographic information (i.e., school year, gender, major, English proficiency level, and first language), and the second part focuses on their perceptions about the ways that L1 has been used in their current General English classes. In the last part, the students’ thoughts about the inclusion of their L1 in English as a foreign language (EFL) class were asked. The survey consists of three types of questions: multiple-choice, 5-point Likert scale, and open-ended questions. For example, the 5-point Likert scale question was used to examine students’ general satisfaction rate along with an open-ended question asking to elaborate their thoughts behind their choice. To find out under what circumstances they preferred English and/or Korean to be used, multi-select multiple choice questions were utilized. Since all the respondents’ first language was Korean, the survey was written and answered in Korean and was translated into English for this article.

The result of the literature review guided some of the survey questions. For example, Question 4 asked how much students agree with the statements about advantages of L1 application in L2 classes. Informed by the research (e.g., Auerbach, 1993; Inbar-Lourie, 2010; Kohi & Suvarna Lakshmi, 2020; Lee & Lo, 2017; Marco & Lee, 2013; Mohebi and Alavi, 2014; Yenice, 2018) on the benefits that L1 inclusion in L2 classes brought out and the purposes that L2 teachers use L1, we developed our own 18 questions under the four domains, academic, affective, managerial, and social, to confirm the advantages that the students may have experienced while taking the current General English classes. In the same vein, we developed another survey question with eight statements about disadvantages of L1 application reported by the previous studies, which mostly focused on its academic and affective aspects.

After the survey questions were completed, an online survey questionnaire was developed in Google Forms, and its link was posted on the board of the LMS of each class at the end of the semester to ask students to participate. Information explaining what the survey is about and how their responses are going to be processed was also included in the post along with messages that they have a right not to respond to the survey. A group message via the LMS system was also sent three times at intervals of one week to encourage participation. Completion of the survey was on a voluntary basis, so no words that sounded obligatory were used at all in the group messages. The survey was also conducted anonymously to protect students’ identity. In total, 69 out of 139 students completed the survey.

The respondents’ answers were automatically transferred to an Excel file upon their completion of the Google survey form. The collected data were analyzed differently according to their type. For instance, the descriptive statistics were used to analyze multiple-choice and 5-point Likert scale questions. Frequency counts were employed when displaying the responses to the multiple-choice questions, and percentages were used for Likert-scale ratings.

For the open-ended questions, the content analysis method was used. As for the question asking about the reasons behind their feelings about the way the instructor used both L2 (English) and L1 (Korean) during recorded video lectures, for example, the respondents’ responses were sorted out by the level of their satisfaction rate, from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. The next step was to read those sorted responses thoroughly and repetitively to identify emerging concepts and to use them as coding categories to code the text. After that, the frequency of each concept was counted and displayed in the order of their frequency to figure out the importance and commonality of respondents’ comments. In some cases, relationships among the emerging concepts were investigated to reach a deeper interpretation of the data. To minimize coding errors, coding categories were developed by the two researchers of this study, and they were shared with each other. In the process of discussing and clarifying their meanings together, the coding categories were re-coded, and they were finalized until agreement was reached.

In an attempt to answer the first research question, the students were asked how they felt about the distinctive ways in which their first language (L1), Korean, was used in their online English classes. Table 1 shows their answers.

First, Survey Question 1 asked how satisfied students were with watching pre-recorded video lectures where the instructor’s English explanation was followed by its Korean translation. More than half of the students (63.8%) responded that they were very satisfied, 29% were satisfied, and 7.2% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; no student showed dissatisfaction with the way that L1 was used. Question 1A was a follow up question that asked students to explain their choices for Question 1, which are shown in Table 2. Most students attributed their satisfaction with the instructor’s use of Korean to being able to develop an increased level of comprehension of the material presented in the lectures. With their comprehension level increased, the students rarely missed important contents and instructions the instructor provided during video lectures, which helped them to complete their work on time and in a proper manner and to stay less worried.

Survey Question 2 focused on the instructor’s implementation of English-only for classes held live over Zoom. During these classes students were encouraged to use only English while engaging in speaking activities. About half of the students showed positive (20.3%) and very positive (33.3%) attitudes towards the English-only policy, but the other half showed that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (31.9%), dissatisfied (13%), and very dissatisfied (1.4%). The most apparent reason for the students’ satisfaction may lay in their belief that using English is an integral part of English class, therefore students must make use of the language. The next most frequently mentioned reason for their satisfaction was based on an understanding that learners must speak English in order to improve their language skills. On a practical level, some students stated that the obligation to use only English resulted in greater opportunities to use the language, which further helped them improve. Examples of the students’ positive comments are shown in Table 3. With the belief that speaking English leads to improvement prevailing among the students, the instructor’s attempt to get students to use only English was positively accepted. Ultimately, because the class met the student’s expectation of how they believed an English class should be conducted and what would be required to improve their English, they showed a general satisfaction with the English-only policy during the Zoom sessions.

However, the students’ satisfaction with the English-only policy during Zoom lessons was not as high as the case of pre-recorded videos in which both English and Korean were used; the satisfaction rate dropped by about 40%, and neutral and negative attitudes sharply increased accordingly. As shown in Table 4, one of the dominant reasons that led to the students’ dissatisfaction with using only English stemmed from their low English proficiency. Many students commented that it was not “easy for them to communicate” during the Zoom lessons because their English level was too low and that they lacked confidence to speak. Some students also pointed out that they felt a sense of burden when they were forced to speak their imperfect English in front of other students, and some others felt awkward because they were not accustomed to using English to communicate in class. These emotions intensified when they were forced to speak using only English. As a result, the students became more hesitant to participate in speaking activities, which led to having less opportunities to use English in class.

Survey Question 3 sought to find out how satisfied the students were with using only Korean when the instructor gave oral feedback on the students’ presentation assignments over Zoom, posted announcements on the class LMS, and communicated via email or the LMS messaging system. The results show that nearly all of the students (97.1%) were satisfied (20.3%) or very satisfied (76.8%) with the use of Korean, and 2.9% remained neutral. The reasons that students showed support for the use of their L1 correspond to the reasons found in the case of video lectures. Sixty- one out of 69 respondents commented that the use of Korean helped them to “fully,” “accurately,” and/or “quickly” understand the instructor, whether spoken, or written, so that they could “follow the class better,” “complete tasks in time,” and/or “fix their problems and answer questions more easily.” In particular, it was frequently mentioned that Korean was the most suitable language to meet the purposes of providing feedback, posting announcements, and for email correspondence. For example, one of the respondents stated, “I liked using Korean because what’s important when receiving oral feedback is whether I can accurately understand the feedback and fix my problem accordingly.” Essentially, the student viewed the purpose of receiving feedback from the instructor as a means of helping them clearly understand what weaknesses needed to be addressed to aid them in improving their performance in the next presentation. Thus, the use of Korean was determined to be the most suitable medium of communication to meet the intended purpose considering the student’s English level.

Survey Question 4 focused on understanding whether the students had experienced the advantages of the use of L1 in the following four areas, academic, affective, managerial, and social, as suggested by the previous research (e.g., Auerbach, 1993; Inbar-Lourie, 2010; Kohi & Suvarna Lakshmi, 2020; Lee & Lo, 2017; Marco & Lee, 2013; Mohebi and Alavi, 2014; Yenice, 2018). To begin with, Table 5 shows that most students (from 87% at minimum to 92.4% at maximum) agreed or strongly agreed that the way the instructor applied Korean as a medium of instruction to their classes was advantageous for academic purposes. It helped them to learn textbook content clearly (#1) and quickly (#2), learn English better in general (#14) and English words, expressions, and grammar in particular (#4), and understand the instructor’s feedback (#7). From the affective perspective, it was agreed or strongly agreed in the range from 79.7% to 92.8% that the use of Korean functioned positively in ways to reduce students’ anxiety about watching pre-recorded video lectures (#5) and to lower their stress level (#12) so that they could feel more relaxed (#13) and be more active in asking the instructor questions (#8). In addition, the use of L1 seemed to help the students to successfully manage their learning while taking the class. Most students (from 82.6% to 97.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to better understand the instructions given for assignments (#3) and administrative instructions (#10), to remain more focused on the video lectures (#6), and to eventually complete the course (#11). However, when it comes to managing group activities, it was noticeable that the agreement rate (73.9%) did not appear to be as high compared to the other managerial aspects of the use of Korean although it was still considered high.

Some social benefits in terms of participation and relationships that the use of L1 brought out in the previous research were also found in this study. More than four- fifths (85.5%) of the respondents positively responded that it helped them to participate more in class activities (#15) and 89.9% mentioned that it helped them to develop a better relationship with the instructor (#9). However, as both of their agreement levels dropped to 66.7%, the students did not seem to agree as much as they did with the other social functions of Korean that its use would have helped them to engage more in class and group speaking activities (#16) and to develop a closer relationship with their group members (#17) even if Korean had been allowed. Based on these results, we can reason that the use of L1 functions to improve online interactions and relationships among students and manage group activities to a certain degree, but that L1 alone would not be enough to achieve these purposes. It is also questionable whether English alone could achieve these goals and it raises the question whether this may simply be a limitation of online learning.

The students’ perceptions about the concerns or disadvantages of L1 use in English class were also checked through Survey Question 5 (Table 6). For academic purposes, most respondents (from 76.8% to 95.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the way that Korean was used in their English classes negatively affected their English improvement (#2) and English learning experiences (#7), interfered with their effort to think in English (#6), or lowered the opportunities to be exposed to English. When exploring potential disadvantages of L1 from the affective aspect, 95.7% of the respondents believed that the way that Korean was used in their classes was not against the nature of English class (#3), and 94.2% and 95.6% chose respectively that they were not disappointed (#4) or confused (#5) when two languages were used as mediums of communication.

To summarize, the students in this study appeared to agree with the advantages posed by the use of L1 as researched in previous studies. However, the potential managerial benefits posed by the use of L1 during group activities was not perceived to be as high as anticipated. In addition, the social benefits of L1 were also felt less during online group activities. One of the reasons for this may be due to the fact that interaction through live Zoom classes differs vastly from interaction between students in a physical classroom. The dynamics of interpersonal interactions and the relationships that can be forged between classmates in-person seems to be absent, or at best lacking, in the online learning space. Regarding the potential disadvantages of the use of L1, it was interesting that the students in this study did not see its disadvantages, although it was somewhat agreed that the opportunities to be exposed to English could decrease with L1 inclusion.

The second part of the survey questionnaire sought to answer the second research question: How do students perceive L1 should be used in online EFL classes? Survey Question 6 was about what language(s) the students believed an instructor should use in an online English class, and Table 7 shows their answers. More than two fifths of the respondents (44.9%) argued that the English instructor should use “mostly English, but Korean when needed” (44.9%), another two fifths (40.6%) responded “English and Korean, half and half.” The third most selected choice was “mostly Korean, but English when needed” (11.6%), and “English only” came next (2.9%). No respondent chose “only Korean.”

Survey Question 7 asked what language(s) learners should use and to what degree in an online English- speaking class. The results showed that “mostly English, but Korean when needed” was selected the most (59.4%), followed by “half and half” (21.7%), “mostly Korean but English when needed” (11.6%), “English only” (5.8%), and “All Korean” (1.4%). It was generally agreed that learners should use English but should also be allowed to use Korean to a certain degree when needed. In addition, as in the case that the rate of “mostly English” (59.4%) was two times more than the rate of “half and half” (21.7%), the students themselves seem to believe that they should use English more than Korean, even in a situation when Korean may be allowed.

Survey Question 8 asked under what circumstances do students feel the instructor should use Korean if they would take the same class again online, and Table 8 shows their choices in the order of frequency. First, the use of Korean was considered important across all the three platforms, video lecture, Zoom, and LMS and email, when instructional accuracy and clarity (e.g., announcing assignment information, providing administrative information, answering their personal questions) were needed. The students appeared to consider it especially important that they were able to comprehend without any confusion what the instructor intended for managerial purposes (such as how to do and submit assignments, what to be careful of when filming presentations, and by when to submit midterm and final presentations), which was integral to their successful completion of the class. Secondly, many students responded that it was important to use Korean for academic purposes. However, it seemed that L1 was needed more when the aspects of English language itself (e.g., word definition, expressions, and grammar) were explained rather than when the content of the course was lectured and practiced, such as how to organize a presentation. Lastly, Korean was considered an important medium for the instructor to use when feedback on assignments was discussed.

The students were also asked under what circumstances they should be allowed to use Korean in their current online English class (Survey Question 9). As Table 9 shows, their answers did not significantly differ from the circumstances under which the instructor should use Korean. For example, when requesting instructional accuracy and clarity and when consulting the instructor over the results of their presentations, they thought they should be allowed to use Korean. Although the instructor’s use of Korean was not strongly requested during the live speaking activities over Zoom (30.4% and 27.5%), the students requested more Korean even when conducting speaking activities. The students wanted to be able to use Korean when they faced difficulties speaking English during class or group activities (75.4% and 75.4% each). Lastly, the students saw that Korean was needed more in formal situations like when practicing English during Zoom classes rather than in informal situations like when having daily conversations.

The last set of survey questions (10 and 10A) focused on determining which environment, between online and offline, the students felt the use of Korean was more necessary and why. About half of the students (65.2%) chose that Korean is needed in both online and offline environments, followed by “needed more in offline classes” (18.8%), and “needed more in online classes” (15.9%); no respondent chose “not needed in either online or offline classes.” Regardless of whether the class was held online or offline, the respondents pointed to their low English level as the reason for their choices. Those who thought Korean was needed more in an offline environment added that they would have more difficulty understanding English because they would not be able to pause or replay the instructor’s lecture as they could do with pre-recorded videos viewed online. These students also stated that they would feel more nervous or overwhelmed when speaking to people in a live setting. In addition, there are other factors like noise or distractions that could hinder their English listening comprehension in the offline setting, which could be remedied through the use of Korean when necessary. Those respondents who chose Korean as being needed more in online classes primarily pointed out the limitations of online communication such as its heavy reliance on voice and lack of nonverbal cues such as facial expressions and mood. The example comments on each choice are shown in Table 10.