1 of 19

SLIDE 1 — 0:30

"Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here.

I want to start with a moment every English teacher in this room will recognize. [PAUSE]

You are twenty minutes into a lesson. You're explaining something in English — the present perfect, a reading passage, it doesn't matter. You look up, and you see it on their faces: nothing has landed. Not one word.

And in that instant, you have to decide. Do you switch to Spanish and make sure they understand? Or do you stay in English, because that's what you were trained to do?

For most of my career, I was taught there was only one correct answer. Today, I'll share evidence from 37 Panamanian public-school teachers that invites us to reconsider that assumption.

My name is Yahanys Batista, from the University of Panama, and this is Beyond the English-Only Debate.

This study functions as a pilot within a broader line of doctoral research I'm developing.

What I'll share today is an independent study — not my dissertation itself —

but it speaks directly to the same problem my dissertation addresses, and its findings feed into that larger project.

2 of 19

Problem Statement

“English only”:

Maximum exposure to the target language.
The L1 is treated as interference.
Dominant in communicative methodology for decades.

“Use the L1 freely”:

Ensures comprehension in low-proficiency groups.
Reduces anxiety and cognitive load.
Risks displacing English from the classroom.

Both positions are general rules, not evidence from Panamanian classrooms — leaving teachers to decide alone, with no empirical guidance. That is the problem this study addresses.

SLIDE 2 — 0:50

For decades, our field has treated this as a debate between two camps.

On one side, English-only: maximum exposure to the target language, with the first language treated as interference.

This was the dominant position in communicative methodology for a long time, and many of us were trained inside it.

On the other side, using the first language freely: it guarantees comprehension and lowers anxiety, but critics argue it risks displacing English from the classroom.

Both positions are, in effect, general rules that answer the question before you have met your students or know what you are teaching that day — neither is grounded in evidence from a Panamanian classroom.

That is the problem this study addresses: what do practising teachers themselves actually believe, and does either extreme match their reality?

To answer that, we first need to understand the specific context where this plays out — so let's look at Panama.

3 of 19

The Panamanian Context

Strategic demand

Trade, tourism and logistics through the Panama Canal make English an economic priority.

Policy response

The Ministry of Education has promoted bilingual initiatives and teacher development (Cárdenas, 2018).

Classroom reality

Large classes, mixed proficiency, limited resources, and little authentic practice outside school.

Evidence gap

Documented at university level (Sonhouse et al., 2023); scarce for public secondary schools.

SLIDE 3 — 0:50

Panama is a particularly sharp case.

Trade, tourism, and logistics through the Canal make English an economic priority, not just an academic preference. The Ministry of Education has responded with bilingual initiatives and teacher development — that's documented by Cárdenas, in 2018.

But step inside a public secondary classroom, and you find large groups, very mixed proficiency levels, limited materials, and almost no opportunity to use English outside the school gate.

In those conditions, teachers make the decision I described earlier, dozens of times a week — alone, without criteria.

And here is the gap that motivated this study:

this reality has already been documented at the university level in Panama — that's the work of Sonhouse and colleagues, from 2023. But for public secondary schools, where most students actually learn English, the evidence is very scarce.

To understand why teachers are left without criteria, it helps to see how our field's thinking on this has evolved. That brings us to the theory.

4 of 19

Theoretical Framework

Monolingual assumption

Maximum target-language exposure; the L1 is an obstacle.

Principled L1 use

The L1 as a scaffold — comprehension, cognitive load, affect (Kerr, 2019).

Translanguaging

One linguistic repertoire, not two competing systems (García & Wei, 2014, 2018).

Evidence also shows the L1 supports vocabulary, classroom management, learner confidence and affective support at lower proficiency levels (Guanoluisa et al., 2017).

SLIDE 4 — 0:55

Theoretically, the field has moved through three positions.

First, the monolingual assumption: maximum target-language exposure, with the first language treated as an obstacle.

Second, principled use: the first language as a scaffold. This is Kerr's argument, from 2019 — that it reduces cognitive overload at the exact moment when the explanation is harder than the learner's English.

And third, translanguaging. García and Wei, in their 2014 and 2018 work, ask us to stop imagining two languages taking turns, and instead imagine one linguistic repertoire that the learner drawson to make meaning. Evidence from Guanoluisa and colleagues, in 2017, also shows the first language supports vocabulary, classroom management, and learner confidence at lower proficiency levels.

My study sits in that third space — but it testsit against what teachers actually believe, rather than assuming they agree.

That still leaves an open question:

why do we know so little about what Panamanian teachers themselves think?

That's the gap I'll turn to next.

5 of 19

The Research Gap

Beliefs drive practice

Teachers' beliefs directly shape instructional decisions and policy implementation (Moncada Vera & Chacón Corzo, 2018; Patiño & Ruiz, 2017).

Little Panamanian evidence

International research on this is extensive; evidence from Panamanian public schools is scarce — despite English proficiency now being essential for academic and professional life (Cronquist & Fiszbein, 2017; Gooding, 2020).

Consequences for higher education

Universities train these teachers. Without evidence, teacher education reproduces untested assumptions — a gap already visible at the Panamanian higher-education level itself (Sonhouse et al., 2023).

SLIDE 5 — 0:55

So why does closing this gap matter? Three reasons

First, beliefs are not decoration. They drive instructional decisions and determine how any language policy is actually implemented once the classroom door closes — that's the argument Moncada Vera and Chacón Corzo make in 2018, and Patiño and Ruiz in 2017.

Second, the international literature on this is extensive, but the Panamanian evidence for public schools is almost absent — even though English proficiency is now essential for academic and professional life across the region, as Cronquist and Fiszbein document in 2017, and Gooding in 2020, and Latin America continues to report comparatively low proficiency levels, according to Forbes Colombia in 2020 and Espinoza in 2023.

Third, this gap has consequences beyond the secondary classroom itself:

Universities train these teachers. Without evidence, teacher education ends up reproducing assumptions that nobody has tested — and this gap is already visible at the Panamanian higher-education level, as Sonhouse and colleagues showed in 2023.

Given that gap, it's worth pausing to consider why closing it actually matters — beyond just filling in a blank in the literature.

6 of 19

Significance of the Study

Beyond the secondary classroom, this study's findings can inform English teacher education programmes, curriculum design in ELT degrees, and continuing professional development — helping future teachers make informed pedagogical decisions about strategic first-language use.

Teacher education

Curriculum design

Professional development

7 of 19

Objective

To explore the perceptions of Panamanian public-school English teachers regarding the strategic use of students’ first language in EFL classrooms, and its perceived contribution to the teaching and learning process.

Teachers’ perceptions

Strategic L1 use

Teaching & learning

8 of 19

Methodology

Design: quantitative, exploratory-descriptive, cross-sectional (Hernández & Mendoza, 2018).

Participants: 37 English teachers, public secondary schools, Panama City.

Sampling: non-probability convenience sampling; voluntary participation.

Instrument: researcher-developed questionnaire; 10 closed items on a 3-point Likert scale (Agree, Neutral, Disagree).

Administration: Google Forms, anonymous, no personal identifiers collected.

Analysis: frequencies and percentages in IBM SPSS Statistics.

Validity: reviewed prior to data collection to ensure clarity and relevance.

Ethics: informed consent, voluntary participation, no personal identifiers; academic use only.

SLIDE 8 — 1:20

Briefly, the design and procedure.

This was a quantitative, exploratory-descriptive, cross-sectional study — that's the design Hernández and Mendoza describe, in 2018: in which thirty-seven English teachers from public secondary schools in Panama City, were selected through non-probability convenience sampling, with voluntary participation.

The instrument was a questionnaire I developed for this study: ten closed statements on a three-point Likert scale — agree, neutral, disagree.

It was reviewed beforehand to ensure clarity and relevance, then administered anonymously through Google Forms, with informed consent obtained from every participant and no personal identifiers collected.

Data were analysed in SPSS using frequencies and percentages.

Of the ten items, this talk reports the four that most directly address the study's objective; the complete ten-item results are in the full paper.

This design cannot generalize statistically to all Panamanian teachers.

It can, however, give us the first systematic picture of a group whose views have not been documented.

With the method in place, let's get to what teachers actually said.

9 of 19

What the Teachers Said

Read this way: teachers endorse the L1 as a resource and, at the same time, ask for it to be contained. The strongest single result is not support for Spanish — it is support for limiting it. (N = 37.)

SLIDE 9 — 1:15

This slide summarizes the four findings I will walk through.

-Fifty-seven percent say the first language facilitates English learning.

-Seventy percent say excessive Spanish creates dependence.

-Seventy-three percent say it helps explain complex grammar.

-And eighty-one percent — the strongest result in the entire study — say its use should be limited and strategic.

Now look at the top two bars together:

-eighty-one percent want it limited, and seventy-three percent want it available for grammar. Those are not two groups of teachers disagreeing with each other — they are the same teachers, holding both positions at once.

If you were expecting teachers who are simply pro-Spanish or simply anti-Spanish, this should surprise you. It surprised me: I did not expect the strongest level of agreement to support limiting the first language rather than prohibiting it. That finding is what encouraged me to rethink how this debate is usually presented.

Let's go through each of these four findings one at a time, starting with the first.

10 of 19

The L1 is seen as a resource, not an obstacle

In dialogue with the literature: consistent with Guanoluisa et al. (2017) and Sandoval et al. (2022); Pánchez-Jiménez (2021) found that translanguaging improved learners’ oral reading competence.

A majority perceived the first language as contributing positively to English learning; only 10.8% rejected that role.

56.7%

Positive — 21 teachers

32.4%

Neutral — 12 teachers

10.8%

Negative — 4 teachers

11 of 19

Grammar is where the L1 earns its place

In dialogue with the literature: Kerr (2019) links this to reduced cognitive overload; Vera and Intriago (2022) add that explicit knowledge of L1 grammar facilitates acquisition of the corresponding L2 structures.

Nearly three-quarters considered the L1 beneficial when explaining complex grammatical structures.

73.0%

Agree — 27 teachers

8.1%

Neutral — 3 teachers

18.9%

Disagree — 7 teachers

12 of 19

Teachers are aware of the risk of dependence

In dialogue with the literature: González and López (2019) trace L1 influence on English production; Sagñay and Guamán (2024) find measurable effects on written production.

70.3% believed that excessive use of Spanish increases students’ dependence on their first language.

70.3%

Students become dependent — 26

8.1%

Neutral — 3 teachers

21.6%

Do not become dependent — 8

13 of 19

The Strongest Consensus: contain it

In dialogue with the literature: not an English-only position — Kerr (2019) argues effectiveness depends on purpose rather than frequency; Espinosa and Vega (2020) show code-switching works when it serves an identifiable function.

The highest agreement recorded in the study: L1 use should be limited during English instruction.

81.1%

L1 use should be limited — 30

5.4%

Neutral — 2 teachers

13.5%

Should not be limited — 5

14 of 19

The Position Teachers Actually Hold

What they reject

English-only instruction as a rule.
Unrestricted use of Spanish.
The idea that L1 and English compete.

What they support

The L1 as a deliberate scaffold.
Use tied to an instructional purpose.
English as the primary medium of interaction.

Effective language teaching does not depend on a policy. It depends on informed instructional decisions.

15 of 19

Conclusions

L1 as a pedagogical tool, not an obstacle to acquisition.

1

2

3

4

comprehension, complex grammar, instructions, affective support.

strongest consensus favors limiting — not eliminating — L1 use.

L1 complements, never replaces, meaningful English exposure.

16 of 19

Recommendations

Teacher education programs

Include evidence-based guidance

Curriculum design

Build criteria for when the L1 serves a purpose

Educational authorities

Support informed instructional decisions

Every teacher in this study was trained in a university. Universities are where instructional habits are formed — and where they can be changed.

Future research

Expand this study with a broader, more diverse sample and a follow-up design

SLIDE 16 — 1:00

These recommendations reach beyond the secondary classroom, because the teachers I surveyed — tthey work in secondary schools — were, every one of them, trained in a university.

Four recommendations follow.

Teacher education programs, pre-service and in-service, should include evidence-based guidance on principled first-language use.

-Curriculum designers should build explicit criteria for when the first language serves a purpose and when it displaces English.

Educational authorities should support informed instructional decisions rather than issuing blanket language policies.

And this study itself should be extended: with a broader, more diverse sample of teachers, and with a follow-up design that adds classroom observation to complement what teachers report about their own beliefs.

Before I close, let me be upfront about what this study cannot claim.

17 of 19

Limitations and Future Research

Convenience sample: 37 teachers, Panama City — valuable context-specific insight; national-scale studies ahead.

Instrument validation: purpose-built, content-reviewed; formal reliability testing ahead.

Self-reported beliefs: teachers' own perspectives — classroom observation as a future complement.

Next steps: larger, diverse samples · classroom observation · qualitative methods · full ten-item results.

18 of 19

Thank You!

The question was never whether to use the first language. It was when, why, and how much.

My data come from Panama. My question for this room is how we support teachers in making decisions like this in Panama.

Full reference list available in the conference proceedings paper.

19 of 19

Yahanys Mabel Batista Vergara

yahanys.batista@up.ac.pa

University of Panama

orcid.org/0009-0008-0021-7580

Dr. Alida Vizcaino

Advisor