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 to sustain until a certain level of recognition is achieved.

MTB-MLE refers to “first-language-first” education that is, schooling which begins in the

mother tongue and transitions to additional 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 cited by Delon Porcalla (The Philippine Star)

Updated May 16, 2013 – 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 in

these levels. Makabayan shall be taught in the mother tongue as well. Furthermore, Foerth (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.

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

contradictory findings. For example, there is no difference in the 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, increase active

participation of parents, decrease sexual exploitation by teachers, improve learning, and attract

more girls to become teachers. Khan, Humayun, and Khan (2015) 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 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 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.

 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 like the

provision of learner support materials (LSM), class size, shortages of suitably qualified 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 (Hasselbring and Phil, n.d.); the 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 reality in the

Philippines is that the people regard English as the premium language with Filipino and other local

languages relegated to the background. In fact, they found that more than half of the 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 implications for learning in the dialect

rather than in English. Furthermore, as Burton (2013) uncovered, teachers have ambiguous

feelings towards the implementation of MTB-MLE. While they are 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 practices in primary education. For example, the 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 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 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, Sherris, and Chatry-Komarek, 2012 p. 1). This change 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 and objectives into practice is not as

simple as it might appear, hence the need to monitor its implementation guided by relevant 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 actors 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

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 Educational Linguistics Language
Acquisition Management 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, R.et.al. (2010)Starting Where the Children Are A Collection of Essays on Mother
Tongue. based Multilingual Education and language Issues 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,
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-education-
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 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
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 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
Margerum, Richard D. (2002). Collaborative planning. Building consensus and building a distinct
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.
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 Skutnabb-
Kangas, 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