Venue : Iloilo City (the site of the Aguilar Vernacular Education Experiment in 1948)
Date: February 16-18, 2012 (coinciding with the International Mother Language Day)
conference proceedings will follow soon
1.10.2010
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
Please click the title to download the full paper. You can also view an enhanced version from Multilingual Education-Philippines
MLE in the Philippines: History and Possibilities (Yolanda Quijano-DEPED)
Keynote Speech: Sheldon Shaeffer (former Director, UNESCO Bangkok)
Panel Discussion: Language-in-education policy making in the Philippines (Secretary Jesli A. Lapus, Congressman Magtanggol Gunigundo, Carl Grove-LEAD-SIL) Reactor: Napoleon Imperial, NEDA
Doing MLE in Mindanao (Apo Palamguwan Cultural Education Center)
“Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? Cultural Markers that Divide and Unite” handout (Francisco Datar-UP Diliman)
Panel A: Case Studies in Mother Tongue Instruction I
Effective Education through Community Based Language and Development Programs (Zenith Mousumy Sarker, Kuri Teresa Chisim and Mridul Sangma-SIL Bangladesh)
2. Mga Leksyon sa Paggamit ng Sariling Wika sa Pagtuturo ng Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas at Mindanao (Rudy B. Rodil-MSU-IIT)
3. History and Development of a Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education Program in the Carribean (Diane Morren-SIL International)
4. Thirty Years of Multilingual Education in Guatemala (Ronald Morren-SIL International)
Panel C: What makes a Philippine language?
1. The Dialectology of Cebuano: Bohol, Cebuano and Davao (Divine Angeli Endriga-University of Asia and the Pacific)
2. A Pedagogic Grammar for Cebuano-Visayan (Angelo O. Pesirla – Cebu Normal University)
3. Romancing `ay”: A Corpus-based Analysis of the Tagalog linker `ay’ (Jevalene C. De Los Reyes and Leizl Ocampo-UP Diliman)
4. On the Making of an English-Cebuano Visayan Dictionary (Adelino B. Sitoy- Akademiyang Bisaya)
Panel D: Teaching Mathematics in a Multilingual Framework
1. The Math Inside: Songs, Stories, Dances, Poetry and Games (Alleli Domingo-UP Los Banos)
2. Using Ilocano in Teaching Basic Number Concepts and Operations in Arithmetic (Ernesto Toquero-Isabela State University)
3. Math-talino sa Unang Wika, e sa Ibang Wika? (Flordeliza Mayari, Aurora Maghuyop; Victoria Tafalla
Bernardina Echaluce, Julita Magbitang, Florita Matic-DEPED Valenzuela, and Jessa Mariz Fernandez UP Diliman)
4. Linguistic Cues and the Number Word Acquisition in a Multilingual Context (Rowanne Marie R. Maxilom-University of San Carlos)
Panel E: Developing quality and culturally sensitive teaching materials
1. Traditional Music and Arts in the Classroom: A whole-brain learning approach to language and culture acquisition (Mary Saurman and Glenn Stallsmith-SIL)
2. Insider and Outsider Roles and Other Essential Elements in Developing Quality and Culturally Sensitive MLE Materials (Mansueto S. Casquite- Mindanao Peace Volunteers)
3. Suwat-suwat lang : Turning Teachers into Writers (Raul Moldez-Bathalad Mindanao)
4. On My Experience in Teaching Sinugbuanong Binisaya to our Pupils in Grades 1, 2 & 3 (Aida Zafra-DepEd Day-as Elementary School)
Panel F: The Science in Science Teaching
1. Teaching Quality Science Education in Filipino (Marina E. Balce-NISMED)
2. How do Pupils Organize Information from Video Materials? (Editha T. Villaflor, NISMED)
3. In Science Learning, Two Languages are Better Than One (Keithlyn C. Rubio – UP Diliman)
4. Using Filipino in the Teaching of a Unit on Weather in Grade 4 (Risa L. Reyes- NISMED)
Panel G: Philippine Phonetics I
1. Primary and Secondary Stress in Ilocano (Buena G. Arquillo – UP Diliman)
2. The Acoustic Characteristics of Vowels in Pangasinan (Francisco C. Rosario-UP Baguio)
3. The Acoustic Correlates of Stress in Tagalog (Carla Maria Katrina P. Tantiangco- UP Diliman)
4. The Adaptation of Consonant Clusters into Tagalog Phonology Phonology (Alexandra David-UP Diliman)
Panel H: 2nd Language Acquisition
1. Understanding Why Some Chinese Speak Filipino the Way They Do (Mayyali Joy E. Ng –UP Diliman)
2. The Impact of Inflectional Awareness on the Fast Mapping of Novel Verbs in Filipino, English and Filipino of 46 to 81 month Filipino-English and Chavacano-English Speaking Children (Claribel Z. Concepcion-Ateneo de Zamboanga University)
3. The Acoustic Characteristics of the English Vowel Space of Filipino Children (Christine E. Espedido-UP Diliman)
4. The Acquisition of Case Marking By L1 Chabacano and L1 Cebuano Learners of L2 Filipino: Influence of Actancy Structure on Transfer (Aireen Barrios-Ateneo de Zamboanga University)
Parallel Workshops/Demos
Workshop A: Reading, writing and comprehension in the L1 (Dina Ocampo-UP Education)
Workshop B: Sounds, words and sentence patterns in Philippine Languages (Luvizminda Cagas-de la Cruz – Mindanao State University-IIT and Elizabeth -Calinawagan -UP Baguio)
Workshop C: Mathsaya – Sayaw, Kuwento, Kuwenta, Kanta (Alleli Domingo-UPLB)
Workshop D: Building oral fluency in the L1 and L2 (Ronald and Diane Morren-SIL International)
Workshop E: Sign Languages in the Philippines (PDRC/Philippine Federation for the Deaf)
Workshop F: Bridging the L1 to Filipino and English (Lydia Liwanag-Philippine Normal University)
Workshop G: How to Use the L1 in Educating Our Children in their Local Culture and History (Arnold Molina Azurin-UP Archaeological Studies Program)
Workshop H: Malikhaing Pagsulat bilang Pantulong sa Pagtuturo (Reuel Molina Aguila-UP Diliman)
6:30 PM Welcome Dinner/ International Mother Language Day Celebration
Special presentations from participants from Bangladesh, Timor Leste and various Philippine regions
*******SECOND DAY, February 19, 2010*******
Sharing and Testimonial
Merlie Alunan
Plenary Panel discussion: The Amianan Experience in L1 instruction (Nakem Conferences International – Phil Chapter)
The Lubuagan Experiment (SIL & DepEd Lubuagan)
Panel Discussion: Our MLE Tasks until 2015 (Allan Bernardo-DLSU, Paraluman Giron-DEPED and Aurelio Agcaoili-UH-Manoa/NAKEM
Exhibits
Parallel Paper Presentations
Panel A: Case Studies on Mother Tongue Instruction II
1. Building on Firm Foundations: Mother Tongue Based Early Childhood Education (Catherine Young and Fiona Morgan-SIL International)
2. Building Oral Competency in the Mother Tongue as a Foundation for School Based and Second Language Learning (Ellen J. Errington-SIL Asia)
3. Lipat, Lapit, Lapat: Responding to Challenges in Curriculum Development in Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (Edizon Fermin-Miriam College High School)
4. Dual Language Program Models in Philippine Progressive Schools (J. Aleta Villanueva- UPOU and Ani Almario- The Raya School)
Panel B: Language and Computers
1. A Computational Approach to Filipino Speech Rhythm (Timothy Israel D. Santos- Rowena Christina Guevara, Ian Dexter Garcia and Ricardo Ma. Nolasco-UP Diliman)
2. Filipino Databases and their Applications to Educational Institutions (Rowena Christina Guevara, Arvin Jeremy Agoncillo, Mio Miguel Galang, Kristina Tejerero, Prospero Naval Jr.; Ed Peter Cabalfin and Ricardo Ma. Nolasco –UP DIliman)
3. Stressed out with Stress: the Perceptual Recognition of Stress in a Philippine Language (Maria Paz C. San Juan, Sergey B. Klimenko and Jem R. Javier – UP Diliman)
4. A Perception Test on Plosive Consonants (Divine Angeli P. Endriga- University of Asia and the Pacific and Michaelangelo E. de la Cerna –UPIS)
Panel C: Endangered Languages and their Revitalization
1. Taking Another Woman as my Mother: The State of the Waray Language as Used by Today’s Waray Children (Voltaire Oyzon- Leyte Normal University)
2. The Role of Religious Educational Institutions in Revitalizing Endangered Languages in Northern Luzon in Support of MLE (Bonifacio Ramos-St. Mary’s University)
3. The Revitalization Challenge for Small Languages: The Case of Isinai (Celina Marie Cruz-UPD)
4. Ulupan na Pansiansia’y Salitan Pangasinan: a Decade after: Revitalizing Pangasinan and the Blueprint for the Years Ahead (Catalina Felicitas/Erwin Fernandez-UPSP)
Panel D: Ang Hirap Mong Ispelingin – Issues on Orthographic Development
1. Mga Batakan sa Panitik sa Binisaya-Sinugboanon (Edgar Godin-Bisaya Magazine)
2. Magbaybay ay Di Biro (Resty Cena- formerly from PNU and UP Diliman)
3. Issues and challenges in Pangasinan Ortography (Melchor Orpilla- Ulupan na Pansiansia’y Salitan Pangasinan)
4. Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Factors in Designing an Orthography (Alyssa Cecille Joy B. Pacubat-UP Diliman)
Panel E: Language in Education Policies
1. The Impact of Government Policies on the Indigenous Languages of the Philippines (Atty. Manuel Faelnar-DILA)
2. The Cebuanu-Visayan Language as Medium of Instruction in Teaching Literature Subjects in the Tertiary: Basis for Multilingual Policy Making (Angeles De Pio-Suarez-University of Southern Philippines Foundation)
3. Constitutional Provisions on Language in the Philippines: Implications and Recommendation (Jose. P. Dacudao-Save our Languages Federation)
Panel F: MLE Across Disciplines
1. Ancient Baybayin: Early Mother Tongue-Based Education Model (Bonifacio Comandante-Asian Social Institute)
2. Sampung mga Daliri, Kamay at Paa: Isang Panimulang Pagtatala ng Austronesian Root sa mga Bagay na may Kinalaman sa Kamay, Paa at Bahagi ng Katawan (Eros Atalia-University of Sto. Tomas)
3. Discovering the Ethnic in Philippine History (Ma. Bernadette Abrera-UP Diliman)
4. The Jose Aguilar Community School and the Iloilo Experiment (Mila Aguilar)
Panel G: Philippine Phonetics II
1. Secondary Stress and Lengthening in Tagalog (Anna Tasnim S. Basman – UP Diliman)
2. Some Phonological Constraints in Tagalog (Lorraine Joy A. Lavaro-UP Diliman)
3. An Articulatory and Acoustic Investigation of Kalanguya Consonants (Paul Julian C. Santiago-UP Diliman)
4. The Prosodic Effects of Affixation in Philippine Languages (Carla Maria Katrina Tantiangco, Michael Wilson Rosero and JC Dawn Lim- UP Diliman)
Panel H: No Vocabulary? The Intellectualization Issue on Philippine Languages
1. MLE During the Spanish Period: Philippine Dictionaries from 1521 to 1896 (Amelia P. Punzalan-NISMED)
2. Speaking in a Tongue: Reclaiming the Ilocano Heritage in the Classroom (Julius Soria- University of Hawaii at Manoa)
3. MLE Initiatives in Alternative Learning Systems (Edna Gulosino- DepEd-BALS)
4. The Pedro Orata Community School (Erwin Fernandez- Ulupan na Pansiansia’y Salitan Pangasinan)
Parallel Workshops/Demos
Workshop A: Teaching strategies and methodologies for MLE (Diane Dekker-SIL International/Lubuagan teachers)
Workshop B: Reimagining social studies instruction in basic education (Zeny Reyes-Philippine Normal University)
Workshop C: Drawing on Memory Banking to Envision Community-Based Science Education: Implications to Elementary Science Teaching and Learning (Purita Bilbao-West Visayas State U)
Workshop D: Lecture-demonstrations for Teachers in Ethnic Music and Dance (Kontra-Gapi)
Workshop E: Designing an alphabet for written and unwritten languages (Resty Cena-UP Diliman/Roger Stone-SIL )
Workshop F: Storytelling: from orality to literacy (Orfelina Tuy- DEPED)
Workshop G: Educational Justice and MLE (Jose Lalas-University of Redlands)
Workshop H: Bridging L1 to Filipino and English (Lydia Liwanag/Mila Arias -Philippine Normal University)
Workshop I: MLE materials development and production (Concepcion San Antonio – DepEd Calabarzon and Mel Awid- Translators Association of the Philippines)
Workshop J: Phonetic Data Analysis (UP Linguistics Department)
******* THIRD DAY, February 20, 2010*******
Sharing and Testimonial
Mayor Linda Gonzales/Regional Representatives
Plenary Presentation: “Teacher, Unsa man ni?” Mother tongue education in the Visayas” (Jesus Tirol, University of Bohol)
9:40-10:00 BREAK
Parallel Workshops
Workshop A: Language documentation and data preservation (Rachel Edita Roxas, Danniel Alcantara and Ariane Borlongan-DLSU)
Workshop B: MLE program planning, evaluation and assessment (Yolanda Quijano-DepED and Greg Dekker-SIL International)
Workshop C: Double Exposure in Mathematics (Magdalena Lim-DepEd Mimaropa)
Workshop D: Assessment of Learning (Carl Grove- SIL International)
Workshop E: Socio-Cultural Dimensions of MLE (Dr. Julian Abuso)
Workshop F: Shifting from L1 to L2 in Beginning Reading. (Fely Pado-UP Diliman)
Workshop G: MLE materials development and production (Concepcion San Antonio – DepEd Calabarzon and Mel Awid- Translators Association of the Philippines)
Workshop H: Lecture-demonstrations for Teachers in Ethnic Music and Dance (Kontra-Gapi)
Download related conference materials:
PRINTABLE CONFERENCE FLYER/POSTER
Conference Steering Committee: Ricardo Nolasco (UP-Linguistics), Lydia Liwanag/Rose Suatengco (PNU), Para Giron/Rose Villaneza (DepEd), Amor de Torres (CU), Francisco Datar (UP-Anthropology); Aurelio Agcaoili (UH-Manoa), Mel Awid (TAP), Tony Igcalinos (UNIDEV), Manny Faelnar (DILA), Greg/Diane Dekker (SIL) and Julian Abuso/Ched Arzadon (UP-Education)
7.18.2009
DepEd Order #74 s.2009-Institutionalizing the use of MLE
The new MLE DepED order is now finally signed! It institutionalizes the use of the mother tongue based multilingual education in all schools, both private and public. You can download a copy of the policy from the
The salient features of the policy are the following:
-institutionalization of MLE in all public and private schools from pre-school to high school
-the use of mother tongue as the language of learning and instruction
-the establishment of an MLE support system (orthography devt, locally developed instructional materials, community participation, teachers training, etc)
-contextualized MLE implementation thru local MLE technical working groups
-proper bridging process to introduce additional local/foreign languages. The bridging also involves starting with oral fluency (listening and speaking) and moving towards reading and writing
-Tagalog speaking areas to learn another local language as their L3
-MLE certification process
DepEd Website
The salient features of the policy are the following:
-institutionalization of MLE in all public and private schools from pre-school to high school
-the use of mother tongue as the language of learning and instruction
-the establishment of an MLE support system (orthography devt, locally developed instructional materials, community participation, teachers training, etc)
-contextualized MLE implementation thru local MLE technical working groups
-proper bridging process to introduce additional local/foreign languages. The bridging also involves starting with oral fluency (listening and speaking) and moving towards reading and writing
-Tagalog speaking areas to learn another local language as their L3
-MLE certification process
7.09.2009
Malaysia Drops English For Math, Science Classes
here's a wonderful news item. i am looking forward to the day that we would shift to mother tongue, especially in teaching cognitively demanding subjects like math and science.
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP)--Malaysia said Wednesday it will drop English as the language of instruction for math and science in schools, in a highly sensitive decision that has split opinion in the multiethnic country.
Deputy premier Muhyiddin Yassin said that from 2012 the subjects will be taught in Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, or in Chinese and Tamil in vernacular schools.
Critics of the six-year policy of using English to teach the subjects argue that it has dragged down students' performance and is particularly unfair on children who are not proficient in the language.
"I wouldn't say it's a complete failure but it has not achieved the desired objectives that it was supposed to achieve," Muhyiddin told a press conference.
"The government is convinced that science and maths need to be taught in a language that will be easily understood by students, which is Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, Mandarin in Chinese schools and Tamil in Tamil schools."
He said the government would boost the teaching of English in schools, with more time given to the subject and the recruitment of nearly 14,000 extra teachers nationwide to teach the language.
Muhyiddin cited a 2008 survey which found that students' performance in maths and science had fallen since it had been taught in English, and that rural children were hit particularly hard.
In the months since the government said it was considering dropping English, debate has raged in newspaper columns and letters to media outlets.
In March, riot police fired tear-gas to disperse at least 5,000 Malays who demonstrated in Kuala Lumpur against the use of English to teach the two subjects in national schools.
sources: NY Times
Associate Press
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP)--Malaysia said Wednesday it will drop English as the language of instruction for math and science in schools, in a highly sensitive decision that has split opinion in the multiethnic country.
Deputy premier Muhyiddin Yassin said that from 2012 the subjects will be taught in Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, or in Chinese and Tamil in vernacular schools.
Critics of the six-year policy of using English to teach the subjects argue that it has dragged down students' performance and is particularly unfair on children who are not proficient in the language.
"I wouldn't say it's a complete failure but it has not achieved the desired objectives that it was supposed to achieve," Muhyiddin told a press conference.
"The government is convinced that science and maths need to be taught in a language that will be easily understood by students, which is Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, Mandarin in Chinese schools and Tamil in Tamil schools."
He said the government would boost the teaching of English in schools, with more time given to the subject and the recruitment of nearly 14,000 extra teachers nationwide to teach the language.
Muhyiddin cited a 2008 survey which found that students' performance in maths and science had fallen since it had been taught in English, and that rural children were hit particularly hard.
In the months since the government said it was considering dropping English, debate has raged in newspaper columns and letters to media outlets.
In March, riot police fired tear-gas to disperse at least 5,000 Malays who demonstrated in Kuala Lumpur against the use of English to teach the two subjects in national schools.
sources: NY Times
Associate Press
6.09.2009
MLE Teachers Training at Valenzuela City
Here are some shots taken from the 10 day teachers training at Valenzuela City last May 4-15. It was attended by more than 40 grade one teachers and MLE facilitators.
Most of the photos were taken during graduation ceremony when they displayed the big books they made out of stories they conceptualized about the people and places of Valenzuela City.
Facilitating the training were MLE resource people from Lubuagan DepEd, SIL, TAP, and UP. The program was funded by Cong. Magtanggol Gunigundo, the author of the MLE Bill. Five schools in Valenzuela City were chosen to be the pilot schools for MLE. They are Serrano Elementary School, Lingunan Elementary School, Silvestre Elementary School, Paso de Blas Elementary School, and Mapulang Lupa Elementary School. Representatives from each participating school were chosen to make up the MLE technical group.
The first project they accomplished was adjusting the first 8 week (ECCD) curriculum. Instead of nursery rhymes like "Little Miss Muffet," they chose songs with words and tunes that are familiar to their pupils.
Most of the photos were taken during graduation ceremony when they displayed the big books they made out of stories they conceptualized about the people and places of Valenzuela City.
Facilitating the training were MLE resource people from Lubuagan DepEd, SIL, TAP, and UP. The program was funded by Cong. Magtanggol Gunigundo, the author of the MLE Bill. Five schools in Valenzuela City were chosen to be the pilot schools for MLE. They are Serrano Elementary School, Lingunan Elementary School, Silvestre Elementary School, Paso de Blas Elementary School, and Mapulang Lupa Elementary School. Representatives from each participating school were chosen to make up the MLE technical group.
The first project they accomplished was adjusting the first 8 week (ECCD) curriculum. Instead of nursery rhymes like "Little Miss Muffet," they chose songs with words and tunes that are familiar to their pupils.
1.22.2009
MLE Primer (Condensed form)
The MLE Primer is now available. Get your copy from the Department of Linguistics, Faculty Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman. For more information, call 926-9887 (ask for Vicky).
The primer is entitled "21 Reasons Why Children Learn Better While Using Their Mother Tongue." It is written by RICARDO MA. DURAN NOLASCO, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, UP Diliman.
Below is a glimpse of the primer. The full version contains citations of empirical studies on multilingual education.
1. What is mother tongue-based multilingual education or MLE?
MLE is the use of more than two languages for literacy and instruction. It starts from where the learners are, and from what they already know. This means learning to read and write in their first language or L1, and also teaching subjects like mathematics, science, health and social studies in the L1.
2. When will children start learning Filipino and English?
As they develop a strong foundation in their L1, children are gradually introduced to the official languages, Filipino and English, as separate subjects, first orally, then in the written form.
3. Does MLE only involve changing the language of instruction and translating the materials into the local languages?
MLE is an innovative approach to learning. Apart from programming the use of several languages, it also involves the following: (a) the development of good curricula (i.e. cognitively demanding); (b) the training of good teachers in the required languages for content and methodology; (c) the production of good teaching materials (i.e., error-free and culturally relevant); (d) the empowerment of the community (i.e. school-based management). MLE will not work when one simply changes the language by translating existing materials into the local languages.
4. What kind of learners does MLE intend to produce?
MLE aims to produce learners who are:
• Multi-literate—they can read and write competently in the local language, the national language, and one or more languages of wider communication, such as English;
• Multi-lingual—they can use these languages in various situations;
• Multi-cultural—they can live and work harmoniously with people of culture backgrounds that are different from their own.
5. What specific weaknesses in the Philippine educational system does MLE seek to address?
MLE seeks to specifically address the high functional illiteracy of Filipinos where language plays a significant factor.
As one educator, Professor Josefina Cortes, has observed, we have become “a nation of fifth graders.”
6. Why use the mother tongue or the first language (L1) in school?
One’s own language enables a child to express him/herself easily, as there is no fear of making mistakes. MLE 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 the L1 to construct and explain their world, articulate their thoughts and add new concepts to what they already know.
7. But our children already know their language. Why still learn it in school?
What we and our children know is the conversational language or the everyday variety used for daily interaction. Success in school depends on the academic and intellectualized language needed to discuss more abstract concepts.
8. Why use the national language or Filipino in school?
The Philippines is a multilingual and multicultural nation with more than 150 languages. A national language is a powerful resource for inter-ethnic dialogue, political unity, and national identity.
9. Will the use of Filipino as medium of instruction and as a subject be advantageous to native Tagalog speakers?
It is partially true that native speakers of Tagalog enjoy a small advantage under the present bilingual education set-up in which some subjects are taught in their L1. But this is nothing compared to the overwhelming bias of the present system for English.
10. Will the use of the local and regional languages be detrimental to building one nation?
No, it won’t. On the contrary, it is the suppression of local languages that may lead to violent conflicts, disunity, and dissension.
11. Why use an international language like English in school?
Languages of wider communication like English should be part of the multilingual curriculum of a country. The graduates of this system should find relevance beyond their ethnic and national boundaries. Most world knowledge is accessible in English, and so, knowledge of English is certainly useful. It is not true, however, that students will not learn science and mathematics if they do not know English. The ideas of science are not bound by one language and one culture.
12. Will using the mother tongue as language of instruction hinder the learning of a second language like English?
No. Many studies indicate that students first taught to read in their L1, and then later in an L2, outperform those taught to read exclusively in an L2. Learning to read in one’s own language provides learners with a solid foundation for learning to read in any L2.
13. Will increasing the time for English or making it the exclusive medium of instruction improve our English?
No. This popular belief is increasingly being proven untrue. Large scale research during the last 30 years has provided compelling evidence that the critical variable in L2 development in children is not the amount of exposure, but the timing and the manner of exposure.
14. What is the best way to attain proficiency in English?
For non-native speakers of English, the best way is to teach it as an L2 and to teach it well. This depends on the proficiency of teachers, the availability of adequate models of the language in the learner’s social environment, and sufficient reading materials. Simply increasing the time for English will not work.
15. Are local languages capable of being used as languages of instruction?
Definitely yes. As far back as 1925, during the American colonial period, the Monroe Commission already recommended the use of the local languages in education.
Beginning 1957, the local languages, or vernaculars, became the medium of instruction in Grades 1 and 2. This vernacular education policy was abruptly abolished in 1974, when the bilingual education policy was launched by the Marcos government.
Languages grow and change in response to changes in the physical, social, political, spiritual and economic environments in which they are used. As a language is used for instruction, for example, it intrinsically evolves to adapt to the demands of its users.
16. Why not use an early exit program where the L1 is used from pre-school up to Grade 3 and English is used as the exclusive medium of instruction thereafter?
Early-exit programs can help but may not be enough. The international experience on the use of L1 and L2 in education, especially in Africa, reveals that children need at least 12 years to learn their L1. It takes six to eight years of strong L2 teaching before this can be successfully used as a medium of instruction.
The consolidated Gullas, Villafuerte and Del Mar Bill (or the “English-only” MOI Bill) pending in Congress appears to support the use of the local languages and also the national language in education, as it provides that “English, Filipino or the regional/native language may be used as the MOI in all subjects from preschool until Grade III.” However, the Declaration of Policy section betrays the Bill’s real intention and this is to strengthen English “as the medium of instruction in all levels of education, from the preschool to the tertiary level.” The optional use of L1 and the national language as MOI really means that they may not be used at all.
17. Don’t we need more English since the language will provide more jobs for our countrymen, such as in the call center industry?
Many believe that this is an extremely shortsighted view because not all Filipinos will become call center agents. The more important concern is how to solve the current mismatch between industry and the educational system. According to former Education Undersecretary Miguel Luz, the consensus among employers is that a high school diploma with its current coverage is inadequate for its purposes because Filipino high school graduates are weak in their ability to communicate, to think logically, and to solve problems. Luz adds: “It (the Gullas Bill) is a dangerous bill, however, because it places a misleading emphasis on English as the medium of learning. As such, the young learners and their teachers will concentrate on the language, not on Science and Math and literacy (that is more fundamental to learning).” The best way to learn basic science and math, problem solving skills, and reasoning skills is through the L1.
18. What is a better alternative to the English-only Bill?
A better alternative is House Bill No. 3719, filed by Congressman Magtanggol Gunigundo II of Valenzuela. The Bill is also known as the Multilingual Education and Literacy Bill, or the Gunigundo Bill, which is far superior to the English-only Bill in many respects.
19. Is it costly to practice MLE?
Contrary to popular belief, L1-based education may actually cost less than a system that is based on L2. If we consider the money wasted on drop-outs, repeaters, and failures, as well as other added costs, studies show that L2-based education systems are more costly than L1 systems.
20. What do Philippine stakeholders say about MLE?
• The Department of Education, through Secretary Jesli Lapus: “We find the bill (the Gunigundo bill) to be consistent with the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) recommendations and the bridging model proposed by the Bureau of Elementary Education where pupils were found to comprehend better the lessons in class.”
• The National Economic Development Authority, through NEDA Director General Ralph Recto: “From the economic and financial vantage points, we believe that adopting this education policy (HB 3719), in the final analysis, is cost-effective...
• The Philippine Business for Education (PBED), one of the largest associations of businessmen in the country: “English and Filipino are languages `foreign’ to most children and legislating either as medium of instruction will do more harm to an already ailing system of education.”
• The Department of Foreign Affairs and UNESCO Philippines, through Secretary Alberto Romulo: “Multilingualism is the order of things in the UN and in the world. The unique richness of the world’s national identities draws on the many traditions that make up different countries and are expressed through local and indigenous languages. UNESCO supports mother tongue instruction as a means of improving educational quality by building upon the knowledge and experience of the learners and teachers.”
21. Do we have to wait for legislation to implement MLE?
No. The Lubuagan experience, the DepEd Lingua Franca Project, and other existing programs using the local languages tell us that it is already possible to undertake an MLE program without waiting for legislation.
DOWNLOAD THE FULL TEXT HERE
The primer is entitled "21 Reasons Why Children Learn Better While Using Their Mother Tongue." It is written by RICARDO MA. DURAN NOLASCO, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, UP Diliman.
Below is a glimpse of the primer. The full version contains citations of empirical studies on multilingual education.
1. What is mother tongue-based multilingual education or MLE?
MLE is the use of more than two languages for literacy and instruction. It starts from where the learners are, and from what they already know. This means learning to read and write in their first language or L1, and also teaching subjects like mathematics, science, health and social studies in the L1.
2. When will children start learning Filipino and English?
As they develop a strong foundation in their L1, children are gradually introduced to the official languages, Filipino and English, as separate subjects, first orally, then in the written form.
3. Does MLE only involve changing the language of instruction and translating the materials into the local languages?
MLE is an innovative approach to learning. Apart from programming the use of several languages, it also involves the following: (a) the development of good curricula (i.e. cognitively demanding); (b) the training of good teachers in the required languages for content and methodology; (c) the production of good teaching materials (i.e., error-free and culturally relevant); (d) the empowerment of the community (i.e. school-based management). MLE will not work when one simply changes the language by translating existing materials into the local languages.
4. What kind of learners does MLE intend to produce?
MLE aims to produce learners who are:
• Multi-literate—they can read and write competently in the local language, the national language, and one or more languages of wider communication, such as English;
• Multi-lingual—they can use these languages in various situations;
• Multi-cultural—they can live and work harmoniously with people of culture backgrounds that are different from their own.
5. What specific weaknesses in the Philippine educational system does MLE seek to address?
MLE seeks to specifically address the high functional illiteracy of Filipinos where language plays a significant factor.
As one educator, Professor Josefina Cortes, has observed, we have become “a nation of fifth graders.”
6. Why use the mother tongue or the first language (L1) in school?
One’s own language enables a child to express him/herself easily, as there is no fear of making mistakes. MLE 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 the L1 to construct and explain their world, articulate their thoughts and add new concepts to what they already know.
7. But our children already know their language. Why still learn it in school?
What we and our children know is the conversational language or the everyday variety used for daily interaction. Success in school depends on the academic and intellectualized language needed to discuss more abstract concepts.
8. Why use the national language or Filipino in school?
The Philippines is a multilingual and multicultural nation with more than 150 languages. A national language is a powerful resource for inter-ethnic dialogue, political unity, and national identity.
9. Will the use of Filipino as medium of instruction and as a subject be advantageous to native Tagalog speakers?
It is partially true that native speakers of Tagalog enjoy a small advantage under the present bilingual education set-up in which some subjects are taught in their L1. But this is nothing compared to the overwhelming bias of the present system for English.
10. Will the use of the local and regional languages be detrimental to building one nation?
No, it won’t. On the contrary, it is the suppression of local languages that may lead to violent conflicts, disunity, and dissension.
11. Why use an international language like English in school?
Languages of wider communication like English should be part of the multilingual curriculum of a country. The graduates of this system should find relevance beyond their ethnic and national boundaries. Most world knowledge is accessible in English, and so, knowledge of English is certainly useful. It is not true, however, that students will not learn science and mathematics if they do not know English. The ideas of science are not bound by one language and one culture.
12. Will using the mother tongue as language of instruction hinder the learning of a second language like English?
No. Many studies indicate that students first taught to read in their L1, and then later in an L2, outperform those taught to read exclusively in an L2. Learning to read in one’s own language provides learners with a solid foundation for learning to read in any L2.
13. Will increasing the time for English or making it the exclusive medium of instruction improve our English?
No. This popular belief is increasingly being proven untrue. Large scale research during the last 30 years has provided compelling evidence that the critical variable in L2 development in children is not the amount of exposure, but the timing and the manner of exposure.
14. What is the best way to attain proficiency in English?
For non-native speakers of English, the best way is to teach it as an L2 and to teach it well. This depends on the proficiency of teachers, the availability of adequate models of the language in the learner’s social environment, and sufficient reading materials. Simply increasing the time for English will not work.
15. Are local languages capable of being used as languages of instruction?
Definitely yes. As far back as 1925, during the American colonial period, the Monroe Commission already recommended the use of the local languages in education.
Beginning 1957, the local languages, or vernaculars, became the medium of instruction in Grades 1 and 2. This vernacular education policy was abruptly abolished in 1974, when the bilingual education policy was launched by the Marcos government.
Languages grow and change in response to changes in the physical, social, political, spiritual and economic environments in which they are used. As a language is used for instruction, for example, it intrinsically evolves to adapt to the demands of its users.
16. Why not use an early exit program where the L1 is used from pre-school up to Grade 3 and English is used as the exclusive medium of instruction thereafter?
Early-exit programs can help but may not be enough. The international experience on the use of L1 and L2 in education, especially in Africa, reveals that children need at least 12 years to learn their L1. It takes six to eight years of strong L2 teaching before this can be successfully used as a medium of instruction.
The consolidated Gullas, Villafuerte and Del Mar Bill (or the “English-only” MOI Bill) pending in Congress appears to support the use of the local languages and also the national language in education, as it provides that “English, Filipino or the regional/native language may be used as the MOI in all subjects from preschool until Grade III.” However, the Declaration of Policy section betrays the Bill’s real intention and this is to strengthen English “as the medium of instruction in all levels of education, from the preschool to the tertiary level.” The optional use of L1 and the national language as MOI really means that they may not be used at all.
17. Don’t we need more English since the language will provide more jobs for our countrymen, such as in the call center industry?
Many believe that this is an extremely shortsighted view because not all Filipinos will become call center agents. The more important concern is how to solve the current mismatch between industry and the educational system. According to former Education Undersecretary Miguel Luz, the consensus among employers is that a high school diploma with its current coverage is inadequate for its purposes because Filipino high school graduates are weak in their ability to communicate, to think logically, and to solve problems. Luz adds: “It (the Gullas Bill) is a dangerous bill, however, because it places a misleading emphasis on English as the medium of learning. As such, the young learners and their teachers will concentrate on the language, not on Science and Math and literacy (that is more fundamental to learning).” The best way to learn basic science and math, problem solving skills, and reasoning skills is through the L1.
18. What is a better alternative to the English-only Bill?
A better alternative is House Bill No. 3719, filed by Congressman Magtanggol Gunigundo II of Valenzuela. The Bill is also known as the Multilingual Education and Literacy Bill, or the Gunigundo Bill, which is far superior to the English-only Bill in many respects.
19. Is it costly to practice MLE?
Contrary to popular belief, L1-based education may actually cost less than a system that is based on L2. If we consider the money wasted on drop-outs, repeaters, and failures, as well as other added costs, studies show that L2-based education systems are more costly than L1 systems.
20. What do Philippine stakeholders say about MLE?
• The Department of Education, through Secretary Jesli Lapus: “We find the bill (the Gunigundo bill) to be consistent with the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) recommendations and the bridging model proposed by the Bureau of Elementary Education where pupils were found to comprehend better the lessons in class.”
• The National Economic Development Authority, through NEDA Director General Ralph Recto: “From the economic and financial vantage points, we believe that adopting this education policy (HB 3719), in the final analysis, is cost-effective...
• The Philippine Business for Education (PBED), one of the largest associations of businessmen in the country: “English and Filipino are languages `foreign’ to most children and legislating either as medium of instruction will do more harm to an already ailing system of education.”
• The Department of Foreign Affairs and UNESCO Philippines, through Secretary Alberto Romulo: “Multilingualism is the order of things in the UN and in the world. The unique richness of the world’s national identities draws on the many traditions that make up different countries and are expressed through local and indigenous languages. UNESCO supports mother tongue instruction as a means of improving educational quality by building upon the knowledge and experience of the learners and teachers.”
21. Do we have to wait for legislation to implement MLE?
No. The Lubuagan experience, the DepEd Lingua Franca Project, and other existing programs using the local languages tell us that it is already possible to undertake an MLE program without waiting for legislation.
DOWNLOAD THE FULL TEXT HERE
11.16.2008
A MANIFESTO
EDUCATION for ALL : Building Strong Learning Foundations thru the Mother Tongue
Philippine basic education is now at a critical crossroad.It now calls for the revisiting of our commitment to Education for All (EFA) 2015. All stakeholders have to be vigilant and involved. Otherwise, education will just be a weak transformative power in our society. Instead of education for all, it will be education for the few; instead of seeing Filipino youth become critical thinkers, coherent communicators, and productive citizens; we will see a generation of unreflective and mediocre mouthpieces of languages not their own.
We affirm the need to improve learning competencies in all subject areas, including English. Our educational system has to move forward following a roadmap drawn by experts in language and education based on empirical proofs. Experiences of other multilingual countries all point to the mother tongue as the best language of learning, especially in the early grades. The mother tongue is the most effective bridge to and foundation for the learning of other languages like English.
At this stage, however, many of our lawmakers and national leaders still hold on to the unfounded but long-held belief that an English-dominated initial basic education will produce superior learners. We submit that such educational strategy will only benefit a very small number of Filipinos—those who belong to families where English is the home language. But the truth is that the majority of our school children come from homes where the mother tongue is the predominant language. This explains their marginalization in the classroom.
Such marginalized learners, as pointed out by scientific evidences face the double burden of learning. They are struggling to learn the 3Rs on top of the big burden of learning an alien language in which they are taught. This predicament is one of the major culprits of poor performance and high drop-out rates. All of these imply the needed approach-- teach the yet unknown 3Rs through the already familiar local language and culture, build the learner’s capacity to learn and introduce a second language with the correct phasing. With such mother tongue-based multi-lingual education (MLE) framework, the mastery of all the learning areas including English is effectively attained.
It is a basic truth that language embodies a person's cultural identity and heritage. To uphold this truth, even international law guarantees and directs states’ educational system to develop respect for the child’s own cultural identity and language (Article 29-c Convention on the Rights of the Child). Thus, we reject any assertion that a local language may be inferior, inadequate and poses an obstacle to learning.
We also reject the usual argument that MLE is costly and, therefore, very hard to implement in the face of limited financial resources. Papua New Guinea, a poor Asian country of more than 800 languages, has demonstrated that reliance on local initiatives and resources for MLE is highly feasible and substantially saves on much costs of developing and producing learning materials. Recently, our own DepEd’s Agusan Pilot MLE Study corroborated the practicality and merits of local self-reliance and initiatives. Thus, we submit that ultimately, to insist on teaching with an alien language is more costly and inefficient when children do not become functionally literate and hardly develop higher order thinking skills and whose English competencies are mediocre.
In view of the rush to pass a law on English-based teaching in basic education, stakeholders need to collectively reflect and act now. We call on the following and other stakeholders:
The Department of Education - to have the resolve to uphold and adopt its own framework on Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education set by the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) as the touchstone of the national policy on languages in education;
The Legislature - to pass the amended House Bill 3719 (The Multilingual Education and Literacy Act) as a measure to rationalize and institutionalize a language of learning policy;
The teachers, school heads, and education managers - to provide the initiative and creativity that would bring about a learning environment conducive for mother-tongue education to flourish within the framework of School-Based Management (SBM);
The PTCAs, local school boards, LGUs and other community stakeholders to mobilize and develop the needed resources such as policy framework, learning resources, awareness and capacity building, and advocacy to guarantee implementation and contextualization of mother tongue-based learning.
And all concerned citizens who believe in the cause of Education for All, we call on you to make your voices heard and to give your wholehearted support to mother tongue-based education initiatives.
Let us strengthen the basic foundation of an educated nation: FUNCTIONAL LITERACY FOR ALL. Onward with Education for All through MLE 2015.
-----------------------------------
As an expression of support, please sign our online petition by clicking this link
For paper-based signature campaign, please include name, town, province, organization/sector, contact number. Scan the document and email to mother.tongue@yahoo.com(download PDF file of the manifesto)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)