CASTRO, Kevin Cedrick R.

Bachelor of Secondary Education (CA-English/SPED) Revealing the Inconsistencies

A research-reflection paper on MTB-MLEs implementation

2010-06974 Prof. Romylyn Metila

While on my way to my hometown, Malolos, my attention was stolen by a tarpaulin hanging between two long posts. It was an advertisement of a known private school in Bulacan, as evident by the schools emblem at the upper-left corner. The tarpaulins background was blue, with large white text printed at the middle of it proudly stating: AN ENGLISH-SPEAKING SCHOOL. By the way this statement was printed, a passerby may deduce that the school is proud of its English-only policy inside its classrooms. While looking at this tarpaulin, I asked myself: does extensive exposure to ones target language ensures high proficiency for the learners? Is it necessary for a school to adopt an English-only policy for its students to be competent, both in terms of academic and communicative aspect, in speaking the schools target language and the learners later second language? As my mind drifted away from the crowded halls of the bus that I was in, I started recalling the past lectures that I had with my EDL, EDR and English professors. A childs first language (L1) facilitates on his/her learning of a second language (L2). This statement reverberated in my mind during that time. Most of my professors agreed (and are still agreeing) to the above statement. I reached home with these things still in mind. While watching the daily news, a report about the Department of Educations (DepEd) implementation of K+12 on Academic Year 2012-2013 caught my interest. As a future teacher, it is essential for me to learn what I must know on the learning environment that I will be exposed to in the near future. What really piqued my interest as a future English teacher was the Mother-tongue Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). This reiterated the notion that mother tongue should be used in all areas during the early grades for learners to fully grasp the concepts being taught. To further understand K+12 and MTB-MLE, I visited Google to get a copy of DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012. I found a copy of the Implementing Guidelines of Grades 1 to 10 to Enhanced Basic Education Curriculum, a document enclosed in the aforementioned order. What struck me upon reading the document was the section on medium of instruction (MOI). Below is a duplicated copy of the table found in that section.

1|Revealing the Inconsistencies

Nomenclature / Learning Area Language Arts Filipino English Mother Tongue Science Mathematics AP EPP/TLE MAPEH EsP MT MT MT MT MT G1 G2

Medium of Instruction Per Grade Level G3 G4 G5 G6 G7-G10

Filipino English MT English English Filipino Filipino Filipino Filipino English English -

The highlighted part of the table shows that Filipino and English will be taught as it is. As I received a copy of DepEd Order No. 74, s. 2009 from my current professor, I noticed one conflicting implementation guideline between DO No. 74 and DO No. 31 with regards the MOI in teaching English and Filipino. DO No. 74 states that L1 shall be the main vehicle to teach understanding and mastery of all subject areas like Math, Science, Makabayan, and language subjects like Filipino and English (2009). However, DO No. 31 provides us with this table explicitly declaring that the MOI in teaching Filipino and English will not be the learners mother tongue, it will still be taught using Filipino and English. It seems that DepEd officials were halfasleep while constructing the implementation guidelines of DO No. 31 that they fail to consult DO No. 74, a significant component of MTB-MLE. Firth McEachern, an educational consultant and multilingualism expert in La Union, also questioned DepEds move of neglecting the significant role of ones L1 in leaning an L2 and L3. He reported that after coming back from the mass Grade 1 regional training a week ago, the teachers informed [him] that they were told to teach English and Filipino "as is", that is, not to use the mother tongue. However, he also noticed that the PowerPoint presentations used by the DepEd officials to introduce the English curriculum to teachers noted that the mother tongue will be used for all domains across all quarters of Grade 1 English (McEachern, 2012). The inconsistencies between written documents and oral presentations made by DepEd are clear indications that the implementation of MTB-MLE is just half-baked. Realizing these discrepancies on the materials provided by DepEd, I understood why Mr. McEachern made a big deal out of this slight alteration. From what I learned from my EDL 2|Revealing the Inconsistencies

and EDR professors, a learners L1 may facilitate his/her learning of L2, and the results, according to different researches, are more desirable than engaging the learner to an Englishonly policy in schools. The use of mother tongue in learning a foreign language was an idea conceived during the latter part of the 21st century. Before, the use of L1 in learning a foreign language was considered one of the many myths of language learning. Majority of the linguists and teachers believed back then that a childs L1 hindered his/her learning of L2. Because of this, language teachers will be using the Direct Method in teaching a new language, that is, immersing the learners to the target language to attain comprehension through demonstrations and visuals (Krajka, 2004). Language learning during this period was considered, in my own words, onedimensional since classrooms were filled only with the teachers intimidating and peculiar voice. However, different researches from linguists, such as Jims Cummins, the proponent of the Interdependence Theory, provide us with empirical evidences that L1 really facilitates the learning of L2. Basically, using the mother tongue in learning a foreign language enables the learners to be involved in the process. What it creates is an interactive rapport between the teacher and the learners, thus, providing a conducive environment which makes language teaching and learning possible and less challenging. Throughout the years, researches have been done in the academe to further reinforce our present notion that mother tongue helps in learning a foreign language. Some of the significant results of these researches are the following: In 1993, Auerbuch stated that the mother tongue aids in classroom management, language analysis, presenting rules that govern grammar, discussing cross-cultural issues, giving instructions or prompts, explaining errors, and checking for comprehension (Tang, 2002). It allows for language to be used as a meaning-making tool and for language learning to become a means of communicating ideas rather than an end in itself (Hoang, Jang & Yang, 2010). In 1998, Drnyei and Kormos found that the L1 is used by L2 learners as a communication strategy to compensate for deficiencies in the target language (Tang, 2002). According to Macias, the use of code-switching [L1 and L2] enhanced instruction not only by ensuring understanding and two-way communication

3|Revealing the Inconsistencies

between teachers and students but also by building rapport with and selfesteem on the part of students (Hoang, Jang & Yang, 2010). Many linguists deemed L1 translations as the most favorable among a variety of methods in teaching foreign language since this is said to be clear, short, and familiar (____). Krashen discussed that using L1 in learning a foreign language can be endowed with comprehensible input (Yigzaw & Beshir, 2012). Miles also argued that the use of L1 compensates the teachers weaknesses in using L2. As a non-native speaker, teachers are still susceptible to committing errors using his/her L2 (____). The use of mother tongue in teaching and learning second and third languages, in the Philippines case, Filipino and English, is what I am yearning as a future English teacher. The use of L1 in teaching L2 and L3 helps the students in understanding a concept or a word from L2 or L3 easily. A teacher can easily convey a concept by relating it to the culture of the learners. It reduces the learners anxiety and frustration due to linguistic barriers imposed by the target language. What we desire are for these learners to be competent enough in using the target language, and we can achieve this by using their mother tongue in teaching the basics of the target language/s. I started coming back to my senses, but the questions asked earlier were still boggling my mind. An epiphany emerged as I came back to the real world: the English-only policy is already a thing of the past. Its impact as an educational strategy has been questioned since then. Exposure of a language is not enough for a typical Filipino learner to acquire a language. What they need to see and to discover is the cultural significance of the foreign or second language to their own life. Through MTB-MLE, Filipino children are given the chance to see the language prism through their own eyes. I am just hoping that the authorities behind MTB-MLE make sure that the system is well-planned and will work accordingly for the betterment of the quality of Philippine education.

4|Revealing the Inconsistencies

References and Works Cited Scholarly Articles Hoang, N. T., Jang, S. H., & Yang, Y. (2010). English-Only Classrooms: Ideology versus Reality. Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved June 2012, from http://www.aare.edu.au/10pap/1755HoangJangYang.pdf Krajka, J. (2004). Your Mother Tongue does Matter! Translation in the Classroom and on the Web. Journal of Teaching English with Technology, 4(4). Retrieved June 2012, from http://www.tewtjournal.org/VOL%204/ISSUE%204/05_YOURMOTHETONGUE.pdf Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English Classroom. English Teaching Forum Magazine. Retrieved June 2012, from http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/02-40-1-h.pdf Yigzaw, A., & Beshir, M. (2012). Frequency, Purpose and Application of Using Amharic in Teaching English in Bahir Dar General Elementary Schools. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 6(2). Retrieved June 2012, from http://www.ju.edu.et/ejes/sites/default/files/Frequency,%20purpose%20and%20Applicati on.pdf Online Forum McEachern, F. (2012, June 8). Surprise elements of the MLE component in K12. Message posted to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DILA/message/25002 Government Document Department of Education. (2009). Institutionalizing Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MLE) (DepEd Order No. 74, s. 2009). Pasig City: DepEd Complex. Department of Education. (2009). Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Grades 1 to 10 of the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) Effective School Year 22012-2013 (DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2012). Pasig City: DepEd Complex.

5|Revealing the Inconsistencies