Yes to Filipino-English bilingualism
THIS is a reaction to the primer on MTB-MLE (“Never again: A nation of ‘5th graders’”) written by Ricardo Ma. Duran Nolasco, Ph.D., a faculty member of the Department of Linguistics at the University of the Philippines Diliman. (INQUIRER, Talk of the Town, Aug. 23). MTB-MLE refers to mother tonguebased multilingual education. 1 On “What is the current state of Philippine education?” It is claimed that “[o]ur country is ‘a nation of fifth graders’” and that “[i]n 2013, around 7 million Filipinos did not know how to count and 17 million had poor comprehension skills.”
These allegations appear inconsistent with facts, e.g., basic literacy rates. A Unesco paper (June 2013)—“Adult and youth literacy: National, regional and global trends, 1985-2015” —shows the following rates: 1980, 91.8 percent; 1990, 96.6 percent; 2000, 95.1 percent; 2003, 95.1 percent.
(Also mentioned in “The Underlying Science, the Utility of Acquiring Early English Proficiency: The Flawed Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education Policy,” c2014, ISBN 978971-011-903-5, Eduardo R. Alicias Jr.; Central Book Supply Inc.)
Admittedly, data from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) show poor Philippine performance. But what is noteworthy and instructive is that Singapore, consistent TIMSS topnotcher, does not use any of its mother tongues as the medium of instruction (MOI). Its sole MOI is English. 2 On “When will learning in Filipino and English start? As they develop a strong foundation in their L1 (first language), children are gradually introduced to their xxx L2 (second language [s] Filipino and English.)”
This is the flawed “bridge” quasi-bilingualism-MT-monolingualism followed by bilingualism. This is contrary to the wellestablished scientific merit of balanced and simultaneous bilingualism (Carranza, L.M.V. 2009. “Cognitive advantages of balanced bilingualism,” www.laindex.ucr.ac.cr/pnsac09-2009-12-13-06.pdf; or, Revisita Pensamiento Actual, Uinversidad de Costa Rica, Vol. 9, No. 12-13, 2009; ISSN 14090112, 69-78).
Moreover, MT-monolingualism is detached from the synergy between the MT/L1 and L2 [see Cummins’ Interdependence Hypothesis]. 3 On “Why use L1 in school? One’s own language enables a child to express himself or herself easily, as there is no fear of making mistakes. Through this language, children can immediately articulate their thoughts and add new concepts to what they already know. xxx”
This is a superficial argument for MT-monolingualism, found inferior to bilingualism. There are variants of bilingualism. Language immersion is a teaching-learning arrangement in which the learner’s L2 is the MOI. Apart from being more communicatively capable, the bilingual learner concomitantly reaps the cognitive advantages of bilingualism.
Drawing from results of more than 1,000 studies on immersion programs and immersion language learners in Canada, Baker C. (1993) [Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters] concluded that “early immersion students are more proficient in listening and reading than partial and late immersion students.”
Two-way immersion is considered the most effective bilingual program contributing to long-term academic success. Students must be immersed for four to to seven years, according to Howard, Sugarman and Genesee (2003) [Trends in twoway immersion education: A review of the research. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.]
Dual language is another effective bilingual program. It starts in kindergarten or first grade and extends for at least five years. Thomas and Collier make the case for dual language education to become the standard for all schools and to transform education to 21st century standards (Thomas, W.P. and Collier, V.P. [2012]. Dual Language Education for a Transformed World. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Fuente Press.) 4 On “Why use English in school? Languages of wider communication like English should be part of the multilingual curriculum of a country. Most world knowledge is accessible in English and, therefore, 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.”
Indeed, English “should” be part of MLE. However, unfortunately, English is absent in kindergarten and in the first semester of Grade 1. The time allocation for English in Grade 1 (2nd semester) and Grades 2 and 3 is reduced to only about 50 percent of the time allocation under the old curricula.
It must be admitted that English is a more intellectualized language than any Philippine MT. Thus, obviously English dovetails with the teaching of science and math.
Yes, the MT-using learner will learn science and math but clearly at the expense of efficiency (e.g., more time and effort needed to teach with the use of MT) and of the foregone benefit of learning English early enough.
Given the same inputs, the subject content and English language acquisition are achieved simultaneously with the use of MT-English bilingualism. On “What do studies show on early exit programs? Early exit programs (where L1 is used up to Grade 3 only) are weak programs because:
Children need at least 12 years to learn their L1.
Older children (10 to 12 years old) are better learners than younger children.
It also takes six to eight years of strong L2 teaching before L2 can successfully be used as MOI.
Premature L2 use can lead to low achievement in literacy, science and math.”
That “children need at least 12 years to learn their L1” appears counterfactual. There appears to be a convergence of research findings (e.g., Cole & Cole, 1993; Curtiss, 1977; Goldin-Meadow, 1982; Lindfors, 1991; McLaughin, 1994; Newport, 1991) showing that “children between the ages of 2 and 6 acquire language so rapidly that by 6 they are competent language users,” and that “by the time children are of school age, they have an amazing language ability” (Beverly A. Clark, retrieved on Jan. 28, 2014 from “Firstand Second-Language Acquisition in Early Childhood,” www.ecap.crc.illinois.edu/pubs/ katzsym/clarkb.html.)
The allegations likewise run afoul of the mainstream critical period hypothesis, the basic postulates of which are:
Learning a second language at a young age is cognitively as easy as learning a first language.
An older learner (after puberty) stores new languages in a separate area of the brain, requiring translation and explicit grammar training to learn.
The diminishing plasticity of the brain makes early learning optimal.
Further, the allegations are refuted by the consistent topnotch performance of Singapore in Programme for International Student Assessment and TIMSS. The city-state does not use MT as MOI and uses L2 (English) as the sole MOI as early as kindergarten.
The allegations are likewise debunked by Richard Wong Kwok (Hong Kong Institute of Education), Conrad Perry (Swinburne University of Technology, Australia), Brian MacWhinney (Carnegie Mellon University, USA) and Irene Wong Oiling (University of Hong Kong), 2013, who concluded that “learning English as a second language in Hong Kong before the age of 6 did not harm children’s learning in any way.”
(“Relationships between receptive vocabulary in English and Cantonese proficiency among 5-year-old Hong Kong Kindergarten Children,” Early Development and Care, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 03004430.2013.788819.) 6 On “Will L1 and L2 use facilitate learning? Yes. 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, as shown in the Lubuagan Kalinga MTB-MLE program.”
The allegation that the “Lubuagan Kalinga MTB-MLE program” supports the “L1 then L2” bridge mechanism appears inconsistent with the report: “The Lubuagan Mother Tongue Education Experiment: A Report of Comparative Test Results,” written by Stephen L. Walter and Diane E. Dekker and presented to the House of Representatives on Feb. 27, 2008. The authors asserted that: First, this is a “preliminary report.”
Second, “the early results are more sensitive to local variation, such as teacher and school effects, significant differences in the ability and backgrounds of children and uneven application of the respective models, both control and experimental. (These variables were not controlled for, thus reducing the internal validity of their experiment to practically zero.)
Third, for their general conclusion across the English, Filipino and Mathematics subjects, “on this combined measure, the children in the experimental program scored somewhat higher than did the children in the control program xxx the difference, while real, is not statistically significant.”
Hence, they cautioned the reader: First, “to see these results as illustrative rather than definitive”; second, “xxx one needs to exercise caution in making broad generalizations or assertions based on this preliminary data set”; and third, “this limited data set should not be the sole basis for quick and radical policy adjustments.”
Now, why does Nolasco claim that the Lubuagan students who had been previously taught with the sole use of their MT “outperform those taught to read exclusively in an L2?” With due respect, his claim can only be arrant falsity. 7 On “Will increasing the time for English or making it the exclusive MOI improve our English? Largescale research in the past 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.
The 11-year Thomas and Collier’s study showed that nonnative English learners who were schooled under an all-English curriculum scored lowest xxx in national tests. English learners, who were given L1 support for 6 years, scored the highest xxx, which were well above the norm for their English-speaking peers.”
If there is no adequate time allocation for English, then a significant increase in the time allocation for English will expectedly improve our English proficiency. Also, the use of English (L2) as the sole MOI, being the upper limit of “increasing the time for English” will expectedly improve our English. This is intuitive and self-evident.
The 11-year Thomas and Collier’s study that is alleged to provide “compelling evidence” that the key variables in L2 development are “the timing and the manner of exposure” appear notable for the glaring absence of the alleged key variables.
As alleged, the study shows a comparison in tests performance between nonnative English learners who were schooled under an all-English curriculum versus those of English learners who were given “L1 support” to L2 for six years—not “timing and manner of exposure to L2.”
Ironically, their evidence supports instead the effectiveness of the use of L2 (English) as primary MOI coupled with mere “L1 support.” Theirs is a boomerang that fatally strikes back right into the heart of their claim. That’s shooting themselves in the foot, thanks Nolasco. 8 On “Does MTB-MLE violate the national language provision of the 1987 Constitution? No. The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate the use of Filipino as the official medium of governance and of education xxx”
The second paragraph of Section 6, Article XIV of our Constitution provides, “Subject to provisions of law and as Congress may deem appropriate, the government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as a language of instruc- tion in the educational system.”
This provision clearly mandates the government to “sustain the use of Filipino xxx as a language of instruction.” There is nothing therein that empowers Congress to cause the stoppage or prohibition of the use of Filipino as the MOI. However, paragraph 6, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10533 (statutory basis of MTB policy) contradictorily provides:
“For kindergarten and the first three years of elementary education, instruction, teaching materials and assessment shall be in the regional or native language of the learners xxx.”
This statutory provision clearly excludes the use of Filipino as the MOI from kindergarten to Grade 3, in utter defiance of Section 6, Article XIV of our Constitution. Also, Section 7, Article XIV of our Constitution provides:
For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.”
The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.”
This constitutional provision expressly mandates the regional languages (MTs) to be mere “auxiliary media of instruction”—not the primary and sole MOI. The MTB-MLE policy (K to 3) clearly violates the Constitution.
No to MT as sole and primary MOI, borne of fiction and repugnant to the Constitution.
Yes to Filipino-English bilingualism, borne of science and constitutionally mandated.