Review of Related Literature

 

Review of Related Literature

Mother tongue-based multilingual education is contextualized within the fold of Education for All (EFA) which requires that new models of development and language and education policies that are integrative in character and operation be put in place to ensure sustainability of education  programs (Malone 2003). The institutionalization of MTBMLE in the Philippines through Republic Act 10533 is a product of a long process involving theory building, validation, and evidenced-based advocacy driven enough enou gh to sustain until a certain level of recognition is achieved. MTB-MLE refers to “first-languageMTB-MLE “first-language-first” first” education that is, schooling which begins in the mother tongue and transitions to additional add itional languages particularly Filipino and English. It is meant to address the high functional illiteracy of Filipinos where language plays a significant factor. Since the child’s own language enables her/ him to express him/herself easily, then, there is no fear of making mistakes. It encourages active participation by children in the learning process  because they understand what is being discussed and what is being asked of them. They can immediately use their mother tongue to construct and explain their world, articulate their thoughts and add new concepts to what they already know. Mother Tongue is used as a Medium of Instruction (MOI) for Grades 1, 2 and 3 in teaching Math, Araling Panlipunan (AP), Music, Arts, Physical Education and Health (MAPEH) and Edukasyon sa Pag-uugali (EsP). Mother tongue is taught as a separate Learning Area in Grades 1 and 2 (DepEd Order #31s.2013). The use of the same language spoken at home, in early grades, helps improve the pupils’ language and cognitive development in addition to strengthening their socio-cultural awareness. Local and international studies have shown that early use of mother tongue inside the classroom

 

 produce better and faster learners. It makes them adept at learning a second (Filipino) and third language (English) too. Secretary Armin Luistro Luistro cited by Delon Porcalla (The Philippine Star) Updated May 16, 2013 –  2013 –  12:00am)  12:00am)

 Nolasco (2010) cited that the child’s mother tongue shall be the medium of learning in Grades 1 to 3 because the 3R’S and fundamental Math and Science concepts are introduces i n these levels. Makabayan shall be taught in the mother tongue as well. Furthermore, Foerth (1998 (1998)) as cited by Serquince (2010) stated that the mother tongue of the students provide the foundation for the emergence of reading and writing behaviors. Clay et al. (1998) as cited by Sequin (2010)  posts that the best entering into literacy is through the use of child’s native language.  language.  

August and Hakuta (1997); Collier (1987); Cummins (1984) as cited by Banks and Banks (2007) cited that whatever the earners first language, students who are literate and bare had prior formal schooling in their first language have been found to outperform outpe rform students who have not been taught in the mother tongue. Affirming to this is the 2003 results if Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) wherein Singapore, Republic of Korea, Hongkong, Chines, Taipei, and Japan tapped its said examination. It is worth noting that these countries do not use English as medium of construction whereas, the Philippines who use English as medium of instruction ranked among the fifth from the bottom in Math and Science excellence (Nolasco, 2010). Mallareddy (2012) on the other hand, emphasized the importance of the mother tongue education in early learning. In his study, he found that neglected language skills development in the mother tongue resulted in the failure of the education system especially in the undergraduate level, which highlighted the need for the implementation of MTB-MLE in the edu educational cational system.

 

Other studies related to the use of MTB-MLE in instruction are sometimes varied with contradictory findings. findings.

For example, there is no difference in the effectivity effectivity of teaching

geometrical figures using the mother tongue and other languages (Oyzon, et. al., 2014). In fact, children even performed better when exposed to the mother tongue (Espada, 2012). Furthermore, as Singh (2014) found, success in the use of the dialect in education can still be achieved in places where the pupils speak more than one language. Meanwhile, Benson (2005) stressed the benefits of teaching in the mother tongue language in schools. He highlighted that the use of MTB-MLE increase female enrollment, incr increase ease active  participation of parents, decrease sexual exploitation by teachers, improve learning, and attract more girls to become teachers. teachers. Khan, Humayun, and Khan (2015) also also added and identified enhanced children’s sense of classroom belonging and receptiveness and improved performance in the affective, psychomotor and cognitive behaviors as the the benefits. Likewise, Sario, Guiab, and Palting (2014) found that the use of mother tongue in the classroom made pupils more active,  participative and interactive with their sense of class belonging and receptiveness enhanced. Furthermore, the Lubuagan experience has shown that using mother tongue contributes to the performance of pupils. The overall result of the tests shown that the experimental class scored nearly 80 percent mastery of the curriculum, while at control class scored just over 50 percent mastery. The results provide crucial evidence that mother tongue instruction strengthen learning’s  Nolasco (2010). Despite evidences on the positive effects of the MTB-MLE, it is still not yet fully accepted. One potential explanation is that such policies are directly undermined by what Dorian (1998) describes as “Western language ideologies”, including an “ideology of contempt” for

 

indigenous languages. Shohamy (2006) as cited by Spolsky (2010) has explained this idea further. He argues that five specific mechanisms result in the disregard of mother-tongue based education in some nations: rules and regulations, educational language policies, language testing, public language use, and ideology, myths, propaganda and coercion. The declaration of policies concerning the use of mother tongue entails well-crafted and supported language policies in three areas (Cooper, 1989): status planning on the uses of the language, corpus planning planning about the language itself which includes material preparation, and acquisition planning about the users of the language. These areas require intensive work on the  part of the policy makers to come up with a well- crafted and supported policies. Moreover, implementing mother tongue based programs would be too expensive, especially when multiple languages are involved (Spolsky, 2010). The hard work pushes some policy makers not to pursue with it. Yet, even once appropriate policies are in place, there is often another hurdle: chronic under-resourcing. This may represent true lack of funds or staff, but it more likely indicates that indigenous literacy programs are given low priority, or worse yet, that ‘lip service’ policies are  passed with no intention to implement them (King & Benson, 2004). Meanwhile, the study of Vela (2015) revealed that teaching in the mother tongue would result in better performance in science suggesting that the everyday language of the learners is an active medium of instruction. Walter (2011) also proposed that the impacts of mother tongue instruction are substantial and are measurable both in the short term and in the long term via more global measures such as access to higher education and more advanced career opportunities with greatest benefits to those of average ability and potential. pot ential.

 

These and other paybacks of teaching in the native language prompted world organizations to emphasize the education of children in the primary level using their native language (Khan, 2016). This benefit is one of the bases for the implementation of MTB-MLE in the Philippines along with other international agreements and accords like the Bologna Accord (Sanders and Dunn, 2010) and Washington Accord (International Engineering Alliance, 2014). On the other side of the spectrum, there are concerns about the use of MTB-MLE MTB-MLE like the  provision of learner support materials (LSM), class size, shortages of suitably qualified teachers, teachers ,  preparation, and adequate training (Dio & Jamora, n.d.; Gacheche, 2010; Singh, 2014; and Wa Mbaleka, 2014), difficulty of translating mathematical terms to the mother tongue and insufficient mother tongue instructional materials (DIO and JAMORA, n.d.); that children would not understand some of the phrases which were used because they were different than what is utilized in that child’s community community (Hasselbring (Hasselbring and Phil, n.d.); the undesirability undesirability of mother tongue utilization in some situations (Fóris-Ferenczi and Bakk-Miklósi, 2011; and Sanchez, 2013) like affording little time to mother tongue; when it is already a declining language, and there is a haphazard implementation (Obiero, 2010); and the belief that English is the superior language (Khosa, 2012; Mahboob and Cruz, 2013) because there will be concerns that it will impair the quality of English (Jha, 2013). Another concern in the implementation of MTB-MLE in the Philippines is the attitude of the people towards it. Mahboob and Cruz (2013) in their study showed that the rreality eality in the Philippines is that the people regard English as the premium language with Filipino F ilipino and other local languages relegated to the background. In fact, they found that more more than half of the respondents respondents considered themselves to be highly proficient in English and at the university level, over 90%  preferred English as the medium of instruction above any other language. Moreover, Burton (2013)

 

and Wa-Mbaleka (2014) found that although contented with the increase in student understanding, teachers and parents expressed concern about the future impli implications cations for learning learning in the dialect rather than in English. Furthermore, as Burton (2013) uncovered, teachers have ambiguous feelings towards the the implementation of MTB-ML MTB-MLE. E. While they are following following the policy, they have covertly resisted the system because of future concerns about the outcomes of the MTB-MLE (Burton, 2013). Still, another concern in the implementation of MTB-MLE is the problem of lack of uniformity of assessment assessment practices in primary education. For example, the study study of Dio and Jamora (n.d.) found that the difficulty of translating technical terms in mathematics, which came about from the teachers’ inability to translate translate technical terms to the dialect, resulted in confusion and weak results in standard tests which use English as the medium. This situation happened in using technical terms in mathematics and science subjects. There are instances where whe re no equivalent words in the mother tongue exist for a particular term in the subject . These cases may create confusion in the translation of the word into the mother tongue, which may eventually create difficulty for the students during standardized examinations which use English as the medium. However, the problems in the implementation will be overcome by “progressive powers of change” (Rosekrans, (Rosekrans, Sherris, and Chatry-Komarek, 2012 p. 1). This change will will be achieved through the development of standards of learning and materials, as well as innovative aspects of a constructivist teacher education approach (Rosekrans, et. al., 2012) includinggreater resource allocation, political will and clearer policy objectives (Gacheche, 2010 and Nolasco, 2008). Social acceptance and buy-in are important in that stakeholders should be adequately informed about initiatives that affect them. Higher awareness levels often result in greater

 

mobilization for program support at various phases. Meanwhile, bringing in the right people into the program is an equally important component and refers to competent, motivated, respected, and  passionate policy champions. Orthography development is another component required of a strong MTBMLE. In several instances, orthography development proves to be contentious. Protests are held by linguistic communities whose members believe that some agencies of government have stripped them of ownership of their own orthography because they are not involved in its development process. Bow noted that the trend worldwide in the development of writing and spelling system of a particular language community is moving away from an expert or linguist driven process. The preferred mode is a community-based participatory process where the linguist serves as a ‘midwife’ in a workshop that discusses linguistic and non -linguistic issues associated with orthography development (standardization, representation, transparency, acceptability) and  propose a plan of action to meet a commonly desired outcomes (Bow 2012). What Howlett conveys is that translating policy aims ai ms and objectives into practice is not as simple as it might appear, hence the need to monitor its implementation guided by relevant r elevant theories and assumptions. In moving to a new policy design thinking, Howlett suggests starting with the  basic reality that there are a variety of different different actors interacting interacting with each other for a long period of time within the confines of political and economic institutions governed by norms and standards, each of them with different interests and resources, yet all operating within a climate of uncertainty un certainty caused both by context and time-specific knowledge and information limitations as the basis of design efforts (Howlett 2014). It is in this light that civil society organizations and other stakeholders maximize their participation in the policy making processes where allowed to guarantee that the outcome reflects the negotiated form and substance of a given policy. Needless

 

to underscore, social mobilization and awareness play an important role in maximizing such  participation.

References BANKS AND BANKS, 2007. Multicultural Education: Issues Perspectives; Sixth Edition. Copyright 2001 John Wiley and Sons, Inc, p. 47,67. BANKS., S.R.. And Thompson, C.L.1995.Educational Psychology for Teachers in training. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. BALDAUF,R.,JR. & S.Z.MINGLIN (2010). The Handbook of o f Educational Linguistics Language Acquisition Management Inside Inside and Outside the School. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. COOPER,R. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. New York: Cambridge University,Press. CORPUZ, B. 2003. Manual on Community Immersion and Integration. Quezon City, Metro Manila. HUDSON,R. (2010). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Linguistic Theory. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. KING,K. & BENSON, C. (2010). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Vernacular and Indigenous Literacies. USA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. MCCARTY,T., KANGAS,T. & O.H. MAGGA (2010). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Education for Speakers of Endangered Species. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.  NOLASCO, (2010)Starting Where the Children A Collection of Essays on Mother Tongue. basedR.et.al. Multilingual Education and language IssuesAre in the Philippines. SERQUINA, G.P. (2010). Attributes of Effective Reading Programs Among High-Performing, High Poverty Public Elementary School. Unpublished Dissertation. University of the Philippines, Ph ilippines, Quezon City. SPOLSKY,B. & F. HUTT (2010). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. VYGOTSKY,L.S.1962. as cited by Nolasco (2010), Thought and language, Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. UNESCO Education Position Paper, 2003, Education in a Multilingual World, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. www.unesco.org/education.Acessed Dec. 23, 2011.cited by Divindo, (2012)

 

Websites: http://www.deped.gov.ph/press-releases/deped-renews-partnership-sil-language-development http://www.deped.gov.ph/press-releases/deped-save-children-partner-achieve-efa-goals http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2014/04/10/philippines-national-program-support-for basic-education http://www.adb.org/news/adb-300-million-loan-aids-philippines-shift-new-basic-educationsystem   system

Aguilar, J. (1961). The language situation in the Philippines: facts and prospects. Philippine Journal of Education, Vol. 46 (6), 412-470. Benson, C (2010). How multilingual African contexts are pushing educational research and  practice in new directions. Language and Education, 24(4):323-336. Bernardo, Allan Allan I. I. (2000). On Defining and Developing Literacy across Communities. International Review of Education, 6(5): 455-465. Bresser-Pereira, Luiz Carlos. (2004). Democracy and Public Management Reform: Building the Republican State, Oxford Scholarship Bow, C (2012). Community-based orthography development in four Western Zambian languages. Writing Systems Research, 2012. Routledge. Taylor and Francis CHED Memorandum Order No. 59 s. 1996 Retrieved here http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CMO-No.59-s1996.pdf DepEd Order No. 16 s. 2012. Specifies the first 12 auxilliary languages to be used as MOI in MTBMLE. These are Tagalog, Kapampangan, Pangasinense, Iloko, Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray, Tausug, Maguindanaoan, Maranao, Chabacano DepEd Order No. 28 s. 2013. Provides for seven additional auxiliary languages to be used as MOI MO I in MTBMLE. These are Ibanag, Ivatan, Sambal, Aklanon, Kinaray-a, Yakan, and Surigaonon Gregersen, H., Contreras-Hermosilla, A., White, A. and Phillips, L. (2004). Forest Governance in Federal Systems: An Overview of Experiences and Lessons and Implications for Decentralization: Work in Progress. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia Harris, Philipp R. (1981). The Seven Uses of Synergy. Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 2 Issue 2: 59-66. HB No. 1339. An Act to Strengthen and Enhance Enh ance the Use of English as the Medium of Instruction in Philippine Schools

 

Howlett, Michael (2014). From the ‘old’ to ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sci, 47: 187-207. Johnston, Erik W. et al (2010). Managing the Inclusion Process in Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 699-721. Lucas, Francis B., Tolentino, Maricel A. (2006). Participatory Governance: A Future Charted With the People, For the People. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. L Nos. 1-4, 126-146. Malone, S (2003). Education for multilingualism and multi-literacy in ethnic minority communities: the situation in Asia. Plenary Presentation at the Conference on Language Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Bangkok Thailand,  November 2003. http://www-01.sil.org/asia/ldc/plenary_papers/susan_malone.pdf http://www-01.sil.org/asia/ldc/plenary_papers/susan_malone.pdf Margerum, Richard D. (2002). Collaborative planning. Building consensus and building a distinct d istinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, (21), 237-253.  Nava, F. J. (2009). Factors in school leaving: Variations across gender groups, school levels and locations. Education Quarterly, Vol. 67 (1), 62-78  Nolasco, Ricardo Ma. D. (2013/09/13). ‘Castrated MTBMLE. Philippine Daily Inquirer.  Inquirer.  Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/61025/castrated-mtb-mle Panda, M & Mohanti, A (2009). Language Matters, so does Culture Beyond the Rhetoric of Culture in Multilingual Education. Social Justice through Multilingual Education. Tove SkutnabbKangas, Robert Phillipson, Ajit Mohanty, Minati Panda (eds) Multilingual Matters Silvia, Chris (2011). Collaborative Governance Concepts for Successful Network Leadership. State and Local Government Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, 66-71. UNESCO (2005). First Language First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority Language Contexts in Asia. UNESCO, Bangkok USAID Basa Pilipinas Project. Retrieved here: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JXG4.pdf Walker, Stephen L., Dekker, Diane E. (2011). Mother Tongue Instruction: A Case from the Philippines. International Review of Education, Vol. 57