Mother Tongue Beyond Grade 3
Firth McEachern, 1st International Research Conference on K-12
Education, Legazpi City, The Philippines, Aug 20-22, 2013
Outline
1. Recent History of MOI
policy
2. Literature and Research
about MOI beyond Grade 3
3. Constraints in the
Philippines for MT beyond
Grade 3
4. Opportunities for MT
beyond Grade 3
5. Conclusion
Recent History of
Medium of Instruction (MOI)
Part 1
In 4282 BC, Pharaoh Xirxeflopis wrote the
following about MOI in upper grades:
JK…let’s talk about recent history…
DepEd Order 74, s. 2009
“Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education, hereinafter referred to as
MLE, is the effective use of more than
two languages for literacy and
instruction. Henceforth, it shall be
institutionalized as a fundamental
educational policy and program in
this Department in the whole stretch
of formal education including preschool and in the Alternative Learning
System.”
?
Policy before D.O. 74…
“Right now, the mother tongue or the
lingua franca (the common language
used by a region) is used (at least in
theory, although in practice things are
quite different!) as the sole language
of instruction during the first three
grades of elementary school.”
– Dr. Isagani R. Cruz
(The Philippine Star, July 23, 2009)
?
Former Undersecretary of
Education
Mayroon pa lang MLE policies noon…
Dr. Cruz was referring to a number of
policy moves towards Mother Tongue
(MT) education over the last decade:
• 1999 DECS Order No. 80 specified
that the MOI in all learning areas in
Grade I will be taught in the lingua
franca
• 2001 Number of mother tongues to be
used in the first three grades of the
Lingua Franca Education Project
increased to 10. More schools
identified as pilot schools.
• 2007 DepEd ordered all public schools
(not just pilot or selected schools) to
use the mother tongue for the first
? three grades.
So what’s different about D.O. 74?
“The Order extends the use of the mother tongue beyond the first three
years of elementary school…This means that the mother tongue will
now be used not just for the first three grades, but all the way to the
last year of secondary school, its use progressing one level per year.”
– Dr. Isagani Cruz
(The Philippine Star, July 23, 2009)
?
So what’s different about D.O. 74?
“At one level per year beginning with
preschool starting June 2010, the use
of the mother tongue as primary
language of instruction will be fully
implemented across the basic
education curriculum by 2021.
Colleges and universities will start
accepting high school graduates that
were taught primarily in their mother
tongue by 2021 or 2023.”
– Dr. Isagani Cruz
(The Philippine Star, July 23, 2009)
?
Mother Tongue until graduation?!?
Really?
Well, not exactly. More recent policy issuances have
delimited the role of MT….
DepEd Order 31, s. 2012
Implementing Guidelines of Grades 110 of the new Enhanced Curriculum
Enclosure 1, section D:
Medium of Instruction
“Mother Tongue (MT) shall be used as
the medium of instruction and as a
subject from Grade 1-3. English or
Filipino is used from Grade 4 to 10.”
?
DepEd Order 31, s. 2012: Guidelines for K-12
No MT beyond Grade 3
?
How long is enough?
Research and Recommendations
on Extent of Mother Tongue (MT) in Education
Part 2
Report: Closer to Home: how to help schools in lowand medium-income countries respond to children’s
language needs (2011)
“There are well documented teaching
approaches which give children good
access to national, regional and
international languages, without
damaging their education or their
linguistic rights and heritage (World
Bank, 1995; Patrinos and Velez, 1996).”
?
Report: Closer to Home: how to help schools in lowand medium-income countries respond to children’s
language needs (2011)
“Robust evidence from several countries
shows that children who do not use
mainstream languages at home need to
learn in their own language for at least
six years, at the same time as being
introduced to new languages that they
will need later in life (Alidou et al, 2006)”
?
Report: Language and Education:
The Missing Link (2009)
“Children should learn second
language in gradually increasing
amounts from the beginning of school
until at least grade 6, before they can
cope with the curriculum being
delivered in that language.”
?
Report: EGRA: Applications and Interventions to
Improve Basic Literacy (2011)
“Although children may develop
functional language for social situations
within a year, achieving academic
literacy has been estimated to take 5 or
more years for second-language
learners.”
“Transitioning to full use of 2ndlanguage instruction before students
have sufficient capacity in that language
can block them from learning basic
concepts that are key to
comprehension.”
?
Report: Promoting Literacy in
Multilingual Settings (2006)
“International research shows that at
least some five years of instruction in
the first language – but preferably
throughout the education system – is
required to provide a solid foundation
for further studies (e.g. Baker, 2006;
Baker & Hornberger, 2001; Benson,
2004, 2005; Cummins, 2000, 2001;
Thomas & Collier, 2002).”
?
Report: Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Maintaining first language abilities
and enhancing them through the
development of literacy and academic
language skills in L1 actually leads to
better academic outcomes in L1
(Palmer, Chackelford, Miller & Leclere,
2007), easier literacy learning
(International Reading Association,
2001), and better outcomes in second
language education (see e.g.,
Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006).”
?
Report: Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Research and theory support the
gradual introduction of L2, first
through formal instruction in L2 as a
subject of study, and subsequently,
through the use of L2 in a gradually
increasing number of academic
subjects in the curriculum. However,
this second step should not be taken
too soon.”
?
Report: Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Requiring minority language children
to transition too soon to education in
a new language (e.g., a majority
language) can be detrimental to their
learning processes and their
academic achievement (e.g., Porter,
1990; Rossell & Baker, 1996).”
?
Report: Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Unfortunately, research support for
additive forms of bilingual education
has too often been misconstrued,
unwittingly or deliberately, as support
for ‘short cut’ transition programmes
that require children to tackle the
academic curriculum in the new
language before they have developed
academic proficiency in their first
language (Benson, 2002, 2009;
Thomas & Collier, 2002)”
?
Report: Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“ ‘Short cut’ transition programs tend
to result in subtractive bilingualism.
UNESCO works to raise awareness of
the need to support children in
becoming fully literate and highly
proficient in their first language to
create a foundation for the
acquisition of additional language(s).”
?
“Creating a strong linguistic
foundation typically requires at least
six years of formal schooling in L1 as
the medium of instruction.”
Report: Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“In summary, where data are
available, findings consistently show
that children who have the
opportunity to receive their formal
education in L1 for at least six years
have higher levels of achievement
than those who must transition too
soon to a medium they lack the
metacognitive skills to understand
and use effectively in academic work
(UNESCO, 2000; Mothibeli, 2005).”
?
Report: Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse
Language Backgrounds (2011)
“Yet, internationally, the trend is
towards early-exit from mother
tongue-based bi/multilingual
education and a ‘fast track’ transition
to English or another dominant
language.”
?
Report: Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in
Africa: The Language Factor (2011)
“The first language needs to be
reinforced and developed for 12 years
in order for successful second
language learning and academic
success to take place, i.e. from birth to
12 years (first language as medium of
instruction for at least six years of
formal schooling).”
?
Report: Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in
Africa: The Language Factor (2011)
“The international Second Language
Acquisition literature indicates that
under optimal conditions it takes six to
eight years to learn a second language
in school sufficiently well enough to
use it as a medium of instruction.”
?
Report: Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in
Africa: The Language Factor (2011)
“Language education models which
remove the first language as a primary
medium of instruction before
year/grade five will facilitate little
success for the majority of learners.”
?
Report: Optimising Learning…(cont)
“If one examines early-exit models and the findings of large-scale
studies…(Ramirez et al., 1991; Thomas and Collier, 1997, 2002; Halaoui,
2003; Sampa, 2003)…one finds that for the first three to four years
students appear to be progressing well.”
“However, by mid-way through year four (sometimes sooner), these
students in the submersion or early-exit to second language
programmes start to fall behind”
?
MOI Case Studies
What they reveal about length of MT instruction
Part 3
Thomas and Collier Study
• Landmark longitudinal study on different language-in-education
models
• Examined the records of 700,000 language minority students,
speaking dozens of home languages, in five school systems across the
U.S. between 1985 and 2001
• Achievement levels in English reading were tracked from school entry
through 11th grade.
• Result: the strongest predictor of learner success at upper secondary
levels in the dominant language (English) education system was the
number of early years of instruction the learners had received in their
mother tongue.
?
(from Thomas & Collier, 1997:53)
 Additive
 Additive
 Late-exit
Early-exit
 Subtractive
(No MT)
English
English reading
reading achievement
achievement levels
levels of
of
students
studentsover
over time,
time, for
fordifferent
different languageeducation
in-education
models
models
Case Study: Niger
A study conducted by the Ministry of Basic Education and GTZ compared
experimental bilingual classrooms with traditional French-only
classrooms. It was found that the MOI affects classroom interaction.
Bergmann et al. (2002) reported that interactive teaching style is more
prevalent in experimental bilingual schools where both teachers and
students are able to use the mother tongue.
The experimental teachers, using the L1, do not do most of the talking.
They let the pupils express themselves very often in the elementary
classes.
?
Case Study: Niger
By contrast, the use of unfamiliar languages forces teachers to use
traditional and teacher-centred teaching methods. Chorus teaching,
repetition, memorisation, recall, code-switching and safe talk are
common patterns of L2 classrooms.
Thus, the use of mother tongues as languages of instruction facilitates
the implementation of child-centred pedagogy.
?
Teachers’ ability to engage
Teachers allowed to use MT
in first two grades (CI & CP)
Teachers never allowed
Dramatic effect language has on teaching style illustrated by the study: when
French was introduced as the main language of instruction in the third year
(CE1), bilingual teachers (EE) unfortunately went back to the use of teachercentered pedagogy, just like the traditional French-only teachers (ET).
?
In 2001, it was suggested that Niger move from a transitional bilingual
model to more appropriate model that maintains the use of national
languages as languages of instruction throughout primary school.
?
Case Study: Ethiopia
• Introduced mother-tongue education for the eight years of primary
school in Ethiopia in 1994, with transition to English in secondary
school.
• Despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, Ethiopia was
able to develop 22 Ethiopian languages in addition to Amharic as
languages of learning.
• Accomplished through a system of decentralising educational
administration to the regions and the emergence of enthusiastic and
skilled language development teams and local publishers.
?
Case Study: Ethiopia
?
Retrieved from http://wikitravel.org/en/Ethiopia on 19 August 2013.
Case Study: Ethiopia
• Conditions across the country are complicated (civil conflict, military
conflict along three national borders, the impact of climate change,
and so on) implementation has differed from one region to the next
• In practice, some regions continue MT until Grade 8, others until
Grade 6, and others until Grade 4.
• Systemic assessments in 2000, 2004 and 2008 show that students
with eight years of mother-tongue medium education achieve
better than students with six or four years of mother-tongue
education (cf. Mekonnen, 2005; Heugh et al., 2010; Benson et al.,
2010).
?
Case Study: Mali
• Schools using ‘convergent pedagogy’ were first introduced in Mali in
1987 (Canvin 2007:169). In this program, the mother tongue of the
learner is used throughout primary school, and French is
systematically introduced.
?
Case Study: Mali
• In Pédagogie Convergente Schools, written French is not introduced
until the child is literate in their mother tongue.
• In 1993, in the Ségou Region of Mali, the 1st generation of Pédagogie
convergente students finished the basic six years of elementary
school. 77% passed the national entry exam to 7th Grade compared
with the national avg of 66% (Traoré, 2001, p. 23).
• Pédagogie convergente was extended beyond the pilot schools
beginning in 1994 and, by 2005, it was being used in 2,050 public
schools nationwide and in 11 of the 13 national languages
?
Case Study: Mali
?
MT vs. French schools: Exam Results
?
MT vs. French schools: Exam Results
?
Case Study: Mali
• Another innovation introduced in Mali is the inclusion of tests in
national languages along with other tests administered in French.
• This innovation establishes the importance of mother tongue
instruction for both teachers and students in Mali.
• This change can help reduce teachers’ and students’ fears of lagging
behind monolingual school pupils who are taught exclusively in
French from the first year onward (Traoré, 2001).
?
Case Study: Mali
“Mali is moving from the implementation of an early- exit transitional
bilingual model where mother tongues are quickly replaced by French
(before children develop satisfactory literacy in their first language) to
the promotion of a maintenance bilingual model.”
—Alidou and Brock-Utne, 2011
The World Bank (2004) highlighted Mali as one of the African countries
where learning in public schools is improving.
?
Case Study: Mexico
• Hamel (2008) reported an improvement in academic results when
selected P’urhepecha schools shifted from an early-exit to a late-exit
mother tongue (MT) transition model.
• Pupils achieved writing scores twice as high as those in the early-exit
schools, in both the L1 (P’urhepecha) and L2 (Spanish).
• L1 Spanish-speaking Hnahnu pupils also performed well in bilingual
schools that used mostly Spanish curriculum and included some L2
(their heritage language).
• The worst results were seen among indigenous-speaking pupils who
were immersed in the second language at school, or those who had
to transition from their L1 to L2 quickly.
?
Expected achievement vis-à-vis different L1 models
Extrapolated from Ramirez 1991, Thomas & Collier 1997, 2002;
correlated with Macdonald 1990 and Heugh 2002
Expected achievement vis-à-vis different L1 models
As illustrated in the chart, the following ranges of mean achievement
scores can be expected from the different language-in-education
models:
• subtractive model: 20-30% (below avg compared to L1-educated pupils)
• early-exit transitional models: 30-40% (below avg)
• medium-exit transitional model: 40-50% (borderline avg)
• late-exit and very late-exit transitional model: 50-55% (above avg)
• additive multilingual model: 60% (above avg)
Extrapolated from Ramirez 1991, Thomas & Collier 1997, 2002;
correlated with Macdonald 1990 and Heugh 2002
2nd language acquisition studies
Basque Country. Cenoz (2009) presents the results of a study conducted
by the University of the Basque Country comparing English proficiency
of students of the same age who had experienced different program
models. Some students were introduced to English L2 instruction in
kindergarten, others in 3rd year of primary, and others in 6th year of
primary. Those students who were introduced to English late (either in
3rd or 6th year of primary school) scored higher on most of the tests,
including vocabulary, grammar, and fluency.
Basque Country. Egiguren (2006) found no significant differences in
English vocabulary, reading, listening and speaking between Grade 4
Basque pupils who had started learning English in Kindergarten and
those who had started in Grade 3.
?
2nd language acquisition studies
Catalonia. Muñoz (2006) investigated two age groups: intermediate
starters (began English instruction at age 8-9) and late starters (began at
age 11-12). Late starters obtained significantly higher results in
academically oriented tests when the time of exposure was controlled.
Canada. Studies of English-speaking children in Canada in lateimmersion programs (in which the second language is introduced in
grades seven or eight) have been found to perform just as well or better
on tests of French language proficiency as children who began their
immersion experience in earlier grades. (Genesee, 1987 and Harley,
1986)
?
2nd language acquisition studies
Other studies. Studies that control for the number of hours of exposure
to the L2 in the classroom show, with high consistency, that those pupils
who begin L2 instruction at a later age acquire L2 skills faster than those
who begin earlier. That is, although early starters have the advantage of
more hours of instruction, their learning is less efficient, making earlystart programs less worthwhile on a per hour basis (see Collins, Halter,
Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Lightbown & Spada, 1991, 1994; Cenoz,
2003; Garcia Lecumberri & Gallardo, 2003; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2003;
Perales, 2004;).
?
Summary of these studies…when is the right time to
introduce L2?
Research on second language acquisition is extremely mixed. The Basque,
Catalonian, and Canadian studies show however that early introduction or
immersion of a second language (L2) does not necessarily lead to better
mastery of L2. In fact, it can even lead to negative results. Why?
• Younger learners are not as as cognitively developed as older learners.
Younger learners cannot easily reflect on the metalinguistic aspects of
language.
• Older learners are more efficient at recognizing patterns, and are able to
ask more targeted questions.
• Older learners are better at prioritizing information
• Older learners have had more real-life experiences and may recognize the
personal benefits of acquiring a second language.
• Older learners are more literate (in the L1), allowing for richer instruction in
L2 (grammar rules, deeper vocabulary, more complex analogies, etc).
• Older learners often have had more exposure to the L2 outside the
classroom than younger learners (having lived longer and participated in
more language domains), and thus may have some familiarity with the L2
already by the time they begin formal instruction in it.
?
Implications
• Therefore, the early introduction of Filipino and English and the
early removal of the MT in the Philippine education system is no
guarantee for higher linguistic proficiencies.
• Policy makers should weigh the costs and benefits of early
introduction of L2. Are we getting “bang for our buck”? By phasing
in Filipino and English early, we our consuming lots of classroom
time—time that could be better spent thru higher impact L1
learning.
“More exposure to the [second/foreign] language can contribute to a
higher level of proficiency, but the results do not prove that this
exposure has to take place from an earlier age rather than in a more
?
intensive way in later grades.” — Cenoz (2009)
Additional references supporting late-exit and additive
mother tongue-based education models
Malherbe, 1943;
Bamgbose, 1984, 2000;
Fafunwa, 1990;
Hartshorne, 1992;
Dutcher & Tucker, 1995;
Dutcher, 2004;
ADEA, 1996;
Garcia and Baker, 1996;
Elugbe, 1996;
Thomas and Collier, 2002;
May 1999;
Moll 1992;
Slavin & Cheung 2003;
?
Wong Fillmore 1991
Küper, 1998;
Baker, 2006;
Baker & Hornberger 2001;
Heugh, 2003;
CAL 2001;
Skutnabb-Kangas 2000;
Cenoz & Genesee 1998;
Cummins 1989, 1992, 2000;
Dolson & Mayer 1992;
Greene 1997;
Hakuta 1986;
Krashen 1996, 2000;
Lindholm-Leary 2001;
Ramírez, Pasta, Yuen, Ramey &
Billings 1991;
So why do countries often choose
weak MLE models, like early-exit
transitions from L1 to L2?
Part 4
1. Policy makers can be given false confidence in early-exit
programs because of misleading research
Research conducted on early-exit programs often only cover the
first few grades of school. That is, they obtain data showing the
positive results of the MT while it is still being used, but fail to
follow-up a few years later to see if the gains made during the MTbased grades have been sustained since transitioning to a different
MOI.
?
1. Policy makers can be given false confidence in early-exit
programs because of misleading research (cont…)
In reality, the gains of MT education are often not sustained if the
transition to second languages is too early.
Therefore…
“Any evaluation of an early-exit transitional programme which does not
show students’ performance to at least grade six (i.e. the medium-term
resilience of the intervention) is fundamentally flawed”
— Heugh (2011)
?
2. Blurring of concepts of linguistic transfer and language
transition
Linguistic transfer – hypothesis that language skills in one
language, especially the MT, can transfer and be applied to
additional languages; this hypothesis is supported by an observed
high correlation between strong L1 foundation, and acquisition
and aptitude of L2(s)
Language transition – the policy-driven sequence of language use
in schools; teachers are directed on when and how to use the L1,
and when and how to transition to other language(s).
?
2. Blurring of concepts of linguistic transfer and language
transition (cont...)
The problem is, many policy-makers blur the two. They believe that by
enforcing an earlier language transition, they are facilitating crosslinguistic transfer.
In reality, cross-linguistic transfer is a natural, psycholinguistic process
that happens at its own pace, on its own terms, with many contributing
factors. Of course, there will be no cross-linguistic transfer of literacy
skills without exposure to additional languages, which is why schools
play an important role. But educators cannot make the assumption that
cross-linguistic transfer will abide by the particular MOI sequence that
they have adopted in their school system.
?
2. Blurring of concepts of linguistic transfer and language
transition (cont…)
A mother tongue transition policy does not and cannot decide when
children will be able to transfer their linguistic skills. In fact, it is the
other way around. Our knowledge of how cross-linguistic transfer works
should inform policy-makers about what kind of transition plan to
pursue.
We know that it takes at least 6 years of second language learning to
develop enough proficiency in the L2 to use it in wide range of academic
subjects; this fact should guide policy-makers in devising a
complementary language transition plan that makes use of the L1 for at
least 6 years.
?
2. Blurring of concepts of linguistic transfer and language
transition (cont…)
Example, the Zambian case:
“Unfortunately, the conflation of the terms transition and transfer was
carried through to the Zambian Reading project. In the Zambian context,
initial literacy in year one, with the rest of the curriculum taught through
English, was understood as facilitating [cognitive and linguistic] transfer
– when in fact it facilitated a very early-exit-to-English model.”
— Heugh (2011)
?
3. Misunderstanding of what characterizes a strong,
additive, multilingual education model.
“Even well-meaning and well-intentioned initiatives…have often
misunderstood, misconstrued or misapplied the theory of additive
bilingual education and mis-identified early-exit models for either lateexit or additive bilingual models of education.”
“Alidou and Maman (2003) argue that…most countries talk about
additive bilingual models but [in fact] have transitional ones in place”
— Heugh (2011)
?
3. Misunderstanding of what characterizes a strong,
additive, multilingual education models (cont…)
Example, South Africa:
“From 2002 to 2009, the revised curriculum was based on the
completely incorrect assumption that additive bilingual education can
be provided with three years of mother-tongue education followed by a
switch to English medium from year four onwards.”
— Ibid.
4. Desperate hope? “Some MT-based education is better
than none at all”
“Sometimes, even when the external advisors/agencies understand the
need for substantial mother-tongue education, they feel constrained to
offer ministries/departments of education encouragement when there is
a shift from subtractive to early-exit models. Although they understand
that this is insufficient, they believe that the use of some mother-tongue
education is better than none at all”
— Heugh (2011)
4. Desperate hope? “Some MT-based education is better
than none at all” (cont…)
However:
“While evaluators wish to acknowledge progress in moving from
subtractive (zero mother-tongue education) programs to early-exit, they
ought not to obscure the central problem. It is to the medium- to longterm disservice of the program provider, the community in which the
program is conducted, and the national education system where
relevant, if the evaluator does not point out the fundamental design
flaw(s). The design flaw of the early-exit models offer a lose-lose
scenario for all stakeholders over the medium- to long- term.”
—Ibid.
So what is on the menu for Philippine
education?
An early MT transition,
or an extended one?
Part 5
The Philippines’
Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013
(RA 10533)
Signed May 15, 2013.
Effective August with release of IRR
RA 10533
“For kindergarten and the first three
(3) years of elementary education,
instruction, teaching materials and
assessment shall be in the regional or
native language of the learners. The
Department of Education (DepEd) shall
formulate a mother language
transition program from Grade 4 to
Grade 6 so that Filipino and English
shall be gradually introduced as
languages of instruction...”
?
Reminder of definitions
Early-exit transition models: first language (L1) or mother tongue (MT)
is included as a medium of instruction (MOI) up to Grade 3, before
transitioning to other MOI(s). These are weak MLE models.
Late-exit transition models: first language (L1) or mother tongue (MT) is
included as a subject and a medium of instruction (MOI) up to Grade 6,
and is used at least 50% of total instructional time (Ramirez et. al. 1991).
These are strong MLE models.
Additive models: first language (L1) or mother tongue (MT) is included
as a medium of instruction (MOI) throughout all years of basic
education, alongside other MOI(s). These are strong MLE models.
?
So what model does RA 10553 call for?
• The “mother language transition” from Grade 4 to Grade 6 is quite
vague.
• Notably, regarding this transition, the law states that English and
Filipino will be “gradually introduced as languages of instruction until
such time when these two languages become the primary languages
of instruction at the secondary level.” Since Grade 4-6 is still
elementary level, this means that English and Filipino are not yet
considered primary languages of instruction (LOI) during this period,
implying that some or most of the subjects should still use the MT as
LOI. Secondly, we can also infer that the number of MT-based
subjects would gradually decrease during this period.
• Thus, RA 10553 commits the Department of Education to a medium,
? or at best, late-exit MT transition program.
Caveats about extended MLE
Part 6
Linguistic development
Linguistic development is needed before some MTs can be introduced
at higher levels. Such as:
• Corpus planning activities (Cooper, 1989, p. 149), including the
extension of the language for new functions and topics
• Regularization of spelling and other written conventions are a
prerequisite for effective learning and for producing high quality
teaching and learning materials.
• Early experimentation in Mali showed that some concepts were not
easily transferable to the mother tongues (“national languages”) due
to a lack of appropriate technical vocabulary in those languages.
UNESCO 2008. Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning
Guided change
Pacing. If you decide to extend the use of MT to new grade levels or
otherwise make a big change to the school system, time is needed for
planning, and implementing.
• Educational models evolve with time.
• Educational reforms should be introduced progressively, on an
experimental basis first, in order to implement necessary
improvements.
UNESCO 2008. Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning
MOI is not a “cure-all”
Medium of instruction is not everything:
• The use of local languages as medium of instruction does not suffice
to guarantee optimum effectiveness of teaching and learning
• In Mali, the introduction of MT in 1979 improved outcomes
somewhat, but much greater success in MT schools has been seen
since the 1990s, when the language, teaching methods, AND content
of instruction were improved in an integrated way.
UNESCO 2008. Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning
Materials
Materials are very important:
• Well-planned and structured provision of literature for readers
• Primer and basic reading materials not enough.
• sequential, graded reading materials to move the learners “step-bystep” to develop full, life-long literacy
• Materials for other subjects too.
Young, Catherine (2005). “Developing Teaching/Learning Materials and Graded Reading Materials”. In First
Language First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority Language Contexts in Asia. UNESCO
Bangkok.
External factors
External factors affect the feasibility of extended, more robust MLE
programs:
• Sufficient funding for activities is critical (that said, extended MLE
programs need not be very expensive – see Vaillancourt and Grin,
2000; World Bank 2005; ADB 2010)
• Also important that local language communities contribute to the
effort in various ways
• Political conditions must support, or at least permit, stronger MLE
programs.
What are the sentiments of teachers
about extended MLE?
Part 7
Small survey
• All grade 1 teachers in urban areas of San Fernando City, La Union
were given a short questionnaire about Mother Tongue-based
Multilingual Education (MTBMLE)
• Among other questions, they were asked to what extent MT should
be used in basic education, both in terms of number of years and
subjects.
• Number of respondents is 44. This survey just provided a glimpse of
teacher sentiments in the year 2013. It is not to be taken as
representative of other regions; moreover, opinions continue to
evolve as the K-12 curriculum, including MTBMLE, is implemented.
?
To what extent should MT be used in K-12?
25
Frequency
20
15
10
5
0
MT for most
MT for most
subjects until subjects until G3;
Grade 3; no MT some MT-based
subjects
subjects
thereafter
thereafter
MT for most
subjects
throughout
None of the
above
What subjects, in your opinion, would be
suitable for MT beyond Grade 3?
35
Frequency
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Science
Math
AP
EPP/TLE MAPEH
Subject
EsP
Frequency
What language should be prioritized as
MOI in secondary level?
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mother
Tongue
Filipino
English
Other
Short survey - results
• More teachers prefer there to be some role for the MT beyond grade
3, as an medium of instruction, compared with no role at all. This is
in line with the need for a suitable, gradual transition from MT to
other languages.
• For the secondary level, English is the priority language for the
majority of respondents
• Teachers identified AP and EsP as the most suitable subjects for using
MT as a medium of instruction beyond Grade 3. MAPEH and EPP/TLE
received the next highest number of responses.
?
Short survey - discussion
• Precaution: opinions are opinions. They do not necessarily reflect
sound research findings or what’s best for the learner
• However, it is important to consider what teachers think, as they are
the ultimate implementers of MOI policies!
• Surveys on teacher perception are valuable for:
– shaping realistic policies
– Understanding the level of awareness of teachers about certain issues
– Seeing how acceptance of certain policies changes over time as teachers
actually implement them.
?
Medium of Instruction Sequences
- Example PlansPart 8
KEY
Medium of Instruction (MOI)—this describes the main language of teaching, learning, assessment, and
instructional materials in a given subject and year.
Note about school systems in which the first language [L1] is used initially, followed by a transition to
second language(s) [L2s]: in the early years of elementary, MT-based subjects are ideally almost exclusively
taught in the MT because the focus is to build literacy in the L1. In upper elementary grades, there is a wide
variety of ways the transition from L1 to L2 can be manifested. In some systems around the world, the L1
continues to be the MOI for most subjects, but L2s are gradually introduced as co-MOIs. That is, the languages
are used side-by-side in each class, or on alternate days, or even alternate weeks. This can apply to both oral and
written activities. In other systems, the L1 remains as the exclusive MOI for some subjects, but the L2(s) are
introduced as the exclusive MOI(s) for other subjects, which may or may not increase in number every year. The
following example sequences reflect this latter paradigm, whereby only one MOI is designated for a particular
subject in a particular grade level. This is not to imply that the designated MOI is the only language that can be
used, however. Subjects designated as MT-medium can still make use of English and Filipino, and visa
versa...whatever innovations help the learner.
1st Language Curriculum
SUBJEC
T
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Filipino
English
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
This model, in which children receive the majority of their education thru their mother tongue, is often enjoyed by
children who are speakers of dominant languages, like German, French, Spanish, English, Mandarin Chinese,
and others. MT-dominant curricula like this are also provided to regional, minority, and indigenous groups of some
countries, but not the Philippines. If political, economic, social, or linguistic obstacles prevent the implementation
of this model, then consider a late-exit transitional model…
Extended MLE Model
Significant transition after Grade 6
SUBJEC
T
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Filipino
English
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
In this model, there would be a big adjustment from Grade 6 to Grade 7, but the transition could be “softened” if
teachers are trained to gradually integrate English and Filipino in lessons before Grade 7, and also if one or two
subjects continue in the mother tongue medium through high school. If political, economic, social, or linguistic
obstacles prevent the implementation of this model, then consider another transitional model…
Extended MLE Model
Staggered transition
SUBJEC
T
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Filipino
English
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
In this model, the number of subjects using mother tongue (MT) as a medium of instruction (MOI) decreases
gradually between grades 4-6 for a smoother transition. Content subjects which can be realistically translated into
the MT at higher levels (such as AP, MAPEH, etc.) can transition later than subjects like Math or Science, which
may lack technical terms in the MT. Note: even if instructional materials are rendered in English by Grade 5 in
Science and Math, the MT should be taken advantage of to scaffold learning. This model is compatible with
Republic Act 10553. If political, economic, social, or linguistic obstacles prevent the implementation of this model,
however, then consider a “medium-exit” transitional model…
Medium-Exit Transition Model
SUBJEC
T
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Filipino
English
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
Problem with this model: children may not have enough command of English to already begin using it to learn
Science and Math effectively in Grade 4.
Medium-Exit Transition Model
SUBJEC
T
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
any
any
any
any
Filipino
English
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
Ideally, a mother tongue subject should be included in all grades to continue to facilitate cross-linguistic transfer of
literacy and cognitive skills. L1 reading achievement, even as late at high school, is strongly correlated with L2
listening, speaking, and writing ability (see Sparks et. al. 2012).
Medium-Exit Transition Model
SUBJEC
T
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EsP
any
any
any
any
MT
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Filipino
English
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
Note: While English and Filipino are the primary mediums of instruction (MOIs) at the secondary level, it is not
necessary that this policy is restrictive. DepEd can theoretically identify one or two subjects that can be taught in
any language as deemed appropriate by the region, division, or school. An element of choice, in some cases, is
favorable for educators to make the best adaptations of national policy in the interest of their learners and
sociocultural context. EsP is a good candidate for flexibility because unlike Science, Math, AP, etc, it is not part of
the high-stakes National Assessments and therefore could be taught in any language. Family and community are
central to EsP content, making it doubly conducive to being taught in the local language.
DepEd Order 31, s. 2012
(Guidelines for K-12)
No MT beyond Grade 3
The plan of DepEd as of 2012 (before RA 10533) was to discontinue the MT as an MOI after Grade 3, as can be
seen by this figure. The plan does not give the student enough time to develop his literacy skills before being
forced to switch to second languages as sole MOIs. It remains to be seen, however, whether DepEd will respond
?
to RA 10533 and extend the MT beyond Grade 3.
DepEd Order 31, s. 2012
“Sink or Swim” Early-Exit MLE Model
SUBJEC
T
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Filipino
English
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
Another big weakness: D.O. 31’s incorporation of two language transitions in subjects such as MAPEH (wherein
the MOI is defined as MT for Grades K-3, Filipino for 4-5, and English for Grade 6+) places unnecessary burden
on learners. The extension of the MT as a MOI will not only buy vital time for developing literacy in the L1, but will
also resolve the problem of the strange double transition. Through the extended use of MT as a MOI, learners can
better absorb the content of subjects like EPP/TLE and MAPEH until at least Grade 5, before transitioning to
English. The same with AP and EsP with regards to transitioning to Filipino. Every subject should ideally have only
one language transition (MTE or MTF), if at all.
Early exit…to?
Adapted from “Stairs to Nowhere” by Rolfe ‘13
Compare Early-Exit model with
“Ideal model” (Kosonen):
MT still plays role as a
subject and as an
Language of instruction
(LOI) up to Grade 6.
And the MOI plan for the Pwo Karen
community in Thailand…
MT is used as a LOI in gradually decreasing
amounts, all the way to Grade 6.
Conclusion
Part 9
Philippine MLE is evolving, with legal basis
• The choice of language(s) as Medium of Instruction from Grades 4–6
is still under scrutiny
• The status quo of transitioning from MT to English/Filipino early and
simultaneously across all subjects is not well-supported by research.
• Republic Act 10553 tasks DepEd to formulate a “mother language
transition program” for Grades 4–6.
• It is anticipated that the early-exit plan outlined in Department of
Education Order No. 3, series of 2012, will be appropriately revised.
?
Expanding role of MT has potential
• Teachers appreciate the value of including the MT as a MOI in some
subjects after Grade 3.
• There are many possible options for extended L1L2 transitions
• No one knows what is best, because MT has never been used as a
medium of instruction beyond Grade 3 in this country. We are in new
educational territory!
• All we know is, from international experience, late-exit programs are
generally more successful than early-exit ones. We also know that
there is not just one successful approach.
?
Transition considerations
Ideally, the MT should be included in education as long as possible. But
what subjects should transition from MT to E/F, and when? Depends on:
Linguistic ability of the child. When is the child ready to switch
mediums of instruction (MOI)?
• As demonstrated extensively in this presentation, international research reveals
that it takes at least 5 to 8 years of formal instruction to develop cognitive
academic proficiency in a language that is not your own. Only then can it become
an effective MOI for content subjects. Hence, the MT should still remain the MOI
for most subjects in Grade 4, with extensive use beyond.
?
Transition considerations
Linguistic ability of the child. When is the child ready to switch MOIs
(cont…)?
• While Philippine educators frequently refer to the MT as L1, Filipino as L2, and
English as L3, we must be careful not to presuppose that this scheme accurately
describes all children’s linguistic trajectories. A Sagada child might have L1
Kankana-ey, L2 Ilokano, L3 English, and L4 Filipino; a Manila child might have L1
Filipino, L2 English; a Baguio child might have L1 English, L2 Filipino & Ilokano; an
Iloilo child might have L1 Hiligaynon & English, simultaneously, followed by L2
Filipino. Thus we cannot assume that a particular language (whether Filipino or
English) can be phased in earlier for everyone because it is “easier.” The only
confident statement that we can make is that the L1, by definition, is the best
understood language, and a child should not be disadvantaged by its premature
removal as a MOI.
• Second languages (such as English and Filipino for the majority of children) do not
necessarily have to be introduced as MOIs in a particular order. The important
point is that, collectively, they should not dominate the curriculum too quickly in
the transition period from Grade 4 to 6.
?
Transition considerations
Sophistication of MT and/or teachers’ mastery of it.
• How long can the MT be sustained as an MOI in an increasingly complex academic
environment in the upper elementary grades? Depending on the particular MT, it
may be more easily sustained as a written medium in less cognitively demanding
subjects or those with fewer specialized vocabulary. However, cognitively
demanding subjects, like Math and Science, still need the support of MT—at least
orally—precisely because they are so difficult.
Logistics
• English and Filipino learning materials for higher elementary grades can be
contextualized in the local languages in workshops similar to those organized for
the early grades, with Central Office guidance. But what learning materials are
easier to translate? Would some subjects be cheaper and easier to contextualize?
?
Transition considerations
Features of the secondary school curriculum. How can pupils be lead there in
a smooth and seamless fashion?
•
?
The MT should gradually transition to English in those subjects for which English is the
MOI in secondary school, while MT should gradually transition to Filipino in those
subjects for which Filipino is the MOI in secondary school. But no subjects should
impose two language transitions. If a subject is taught thru MT first, Filipino next, then
English in secondary school, this is confusing for learners and difficult to execute for
teachers. The MOI sequence for EsP/TLE and MAPEH subjects in D.O 31 s. 2012
incorporates this flawed design. The transition from Filipino to English in these subjects
made sense in the past when the school system only included these languages; it meant
that these subjects featured a single language transition. But now that the MT is the
main MOI in the early grades, and should be extended even further, there is no room
nor point for the retention of the Filipino-medium interval in Grades 4 and 5 in these
two subjects (MAPEH and EsP/TLE). Such an interval will: i) detract from content
learning; and ii) create inequalities, whereby children in Tagalog regions will be able to
learn these subjects thru their L1 until Grade 5, whereas everyone else will have to
switch in Grade 3. The judicious paradigm now would be for all Filipino children to learn
MAPEH and EsP/TLE through their respective mother tongues until at least Grade 5,
before transitioning to English. Likewise, other subjects should transition to Filipino or
English, but not both within the same subject.
Looking ahead
• We can reliably predict that a single MOI model will not be equally
appropriate for all schools in the Philippines.
• DepEd’s “mother language transition program” for Grades 4–6 will ideally
be moderate, research-grounded, and not so restrictive so that it can be
widely implementable
• The elements of the transition program can act as a minimum standard for
everyone. Meanwhile, pilot projects can be organized so schools can
experiment, on a smaller scale, a variety of MLE programs that go beyond
the minimum standard. Costs, sociolinguistic issues, teacher training,
parental and community preferences all play a part in the design of
approaches.
• Such pilots will enhance our understanding of multilingual education in the
? Philippine context and shape future policy and practice.
Subject
K-3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
any
any
any
any
Filipino
Early-Exit MLE
Model
English
like D.O. 31, s.12
AP
(w/ sharp
transition)
Science
n/a
Math
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
Subject
K-3
Filipino
English
Extended MLE
Model
(w/ staggered
transition)
Science
n/a
Math
AP
EPP/TLE
n/a
MAPEH
EsP
MT
Submersion
Education
(no development
of L1, poor
development of L2’s)
Early-Exit MT
transition
Extended MT
transition
(incomplete development
of L1 and L2’s as
medium of instruction
shifts)
(cognitive academic
proficiency developed in
multiple languages for
lifelong learning)
References
References
ADEA (1996). A Synopsis of Research Findings on Languages of Instruction and their Policy
Implications for Education in Africa. (Working Group on Education Research and Policy Analysis).
Working Paper for the Meeting of African Ministers of Education and the Seminar on Languages
of Instruction, Accra, Ghana, August 26-30, 1996.
Alidou, Hassana & Birgit Brock-Utne (2011). “Teaching practices – teaching in a familiar
language.” In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (eds.) Optimising Learning: Education and Publishing in Africa:
The Language Factor. Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and the Association for
the Development of Education in Africa. pp. 159-185.
Alidou, H. et al (2006) Optimizing Learning and Education in Africa – the Language Factor, A
Stock-taking Research on Mother Tongue and Bilingual Education in Sub- Saharan Africa. Paris:
Association for the Development of Education in Africa.
Asian Development Bank (2010). Strengthening Inclusive Education. Manila: ADB.
?
References
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4th ed. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. & Hornberger, N.H. (2001) (eds.) An Introductory Reader to the Writings of Jim
Cummins. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bamgbose, Ayo (2000). Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in
Africa. Münster, Hamburg, London: LIT.
Bamgbose, Ayo (1984). Introduction: The Changing Role of the Mother Tongue in Education. In:
Mother Tongue Education. The West African Experience, ed. by Ayo Bamgbose, 9-26. London:
Hodder and Stoughton; Paris: UNESCO.
Benson, Carol et al. (2010). The Medium of Instruction in the Primary Schools in Ethiopia: a
Study and its Implications for Multilingual Education. In: Multilingual Education Works: from the
Periphery to the Centre, ed. by Kathleen Heugh, and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, 40-82. New Delhi:
Orient BlackSwan.
?
References
Benson, C. (2009). Designing effective schooling in multilingual contexts: The strengths and
limitation of bilingual ‘models.’ In Mohanty, A., Panda, M., Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T.
(Eds.). Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local. New Delhi: Orient
Blackswan.
Benson, C. (2005) Girls, Educational Equity and Mother Tongue-based Teaching. Bangkok:
UNESCO Bangkok. On WWW at:
http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/Girls_Edu_Equity/index. htm
Benson, C. (2004) The Importance of Mother Tongue-based Schooling for Educational Quality.
Background paper for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris: UNESCO.
Benson, C. (2002). Real and potential benefits of bilingual progammes in developing countries.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5 (6), 303-317.
?
References
Bergmann, Herbert et al. (2002). Les Langues Nationales à l’École Primaire. Evaluation de l’École
Experimentale. Niamey: Ministère de l’Éducation de Base, Édition Albasa s/c GTZ-2PEB.
Brock-Utne, Birgit & Hassana Alidou (2011). “Active students – learning through a language they
master.” In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (eds.) Optimising Learning: Education and Publishing in Africa:
The Language Factor. Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and the Association for
the Development of Education in Africa. pp. 187-215.
CAL. (2001) Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies. Washington,
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Canvin, M. (2007). Language and education issues in policy and practice in Mali, West Africa. N.
Rassool (ed.). Global Issues in Language, Education and Development: Perspectives from
Postcolonial Countries. Clevedon, UK, Multilingual Matters Ltd.
?
References
Cenoz, J. (2009). The Age Factor in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. In Towards Multilingual
Education: Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Bristol, UK: St.
Nicholas House.
Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.) (1998) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual
Education. Multilingual Matters 110. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chekaraou, Ibro (2004). Teachers’ Appropriation of Bilingual Educational Reform Policy in SubSaharan Africa: A Socio-Cultural Study of Two Hausa-French Schools in Niger. Ph.D. thesis.
Bloomington: Indiana University.
Collins, L., Halter, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in
second language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655-680.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change Cambridge. Cambridge University
Press.
?
References
Cruz, Isagani (2009). “Mother tongue education: Part one.” The Philippine Star. July 23, 2009.
Cruz, Isagani (2009). “Mother tongue education: Part two.” The Philippine Star. July 30, 2009.
Cummins, J. (2001) Instructional Conditions for Trilingual Education. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1), pp.61–75.
Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1992) “Bilingual Education and English Immersion: The Ramirez Report in
Theoretical Perspective,” Bilingual Research Journal 16(1&2), 91-104.
Cummins, J. (1989) Empowering minority students. Ontario, CA: California Association for
Bilingual Education.
?
References
Dolson, D. & Mayer, J. (1992) “Longitudinal study of three program models for languageminority students: A critical examination of reported findings.” Bilingual Research Journal,
16(1&2), 105-157.
Dutcher, Nadine (2004). Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies,
2nd ed. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Dutcher, Nadine and Richard Tucker (1995). The Use of First and Second Languages in Education.
A Review of International Experience. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series Number 1.
Washington: The World Bank.
Egiguren, I. (2006) Atzerriko hizkuntza goiztiarraren eragina gaitasun eleaniztunean. PhD thesis,
University of the Basque Country.
Elugbe, Ben (1996). The Use of African Languages in Basic Education in Nigeria with Particular
Reference to Lower Primary and Functional Literacy. In: African Languages in Basic Education.
Proceedings of the First Workshop on African languages in Basic Education, NIED, Okahanja, 1823 September 1995, ed. by Karsten Legère, 25-40. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan Publishers.
?
References
Fafunwa, Aliu Babtunde (1990). Who is Afraid of the Use of African Languages in Education? In:
Propos Africains sur l’Éducation Pour Tous. Sélection d’articles présentés à l’occasion de la
consultation régionale sur l’Éducation Pour Tous. Dakar: UNESCO-UNICEF.
Garcia Lecumberri, M.L. and Gallardo, F. (2003) English FL sounds in school learners of different
ages. In M.P. Garcia Mayo and M.L. Garcia Lecumberri (eds) Age and the Acquisition of English as
a Foreign Language. (pp. 115-135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Garcia, Ofelia and Colin Baker (1996) (2nd edition). Policy and Practice in Bilingual Education.
Extending the Foundations. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual
Education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Gove, Amber & Anna Wetterberg (eds) (2011). The Early Grade Reading Assessment:
Applications and Interventions to Improve Basic Literacy. RTI Press.
?
References
Greene, J. (1997) “A Meta-Analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education
research,” Bilingual Research Journal 21(2, 3): 103-122.
Grin, F. Economic Considerations in Language Policy (2005). Ricento, T. (ed). 2005. An
Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Halaoui, Nazam (2003). Relevance of Education: Adapting Curricula and Use of African
Languages. Background Paper. ADEA Biennial Meeting, Grand Baie, Mauritius, 3 – 6 Dec 2003.
Hamel, Rainer Enrique (2008). “Plurilingual Latin America: Indigenous Languages, Immigrant
Languages, Foreign Languages – Towards an Integrated Policy of Language and Education.” In:
Forging Multilingual Spaces: Integrated Perspectives on Majority and Minority Bilingual
Education ed. by Christine Helot & Anne-Marie de Mejia.
Harley, B. (1986) Age in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
?
References
Hartshorne, Ken. (1992). Crisis and Challenge: Black Education 1910-1990. Cape Town: OUP.
Heugh, Kathleen (2011). “Theory and practice – language education models in Africa: research,
design, decision-making and outcomes” In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (eds.) Optimising Learning:
Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor. Germany: UNESCO Institute for
Lifelong Learning and the Association for the Development of Education in Africa. pp. 105-156
Heugh, Kathleen et al. (2010). Multilingual Education in Ethiopia: What Assessment Shows us
about What Works and What Doesn’t. In: Multilingual Education Works: from the Periphery to
the Centre, ed. by Kathleen Heugh and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, 287-315. New Delhi: Orient
BlackSwan.
Heugh, Kathleen. (2003). A Re-take on Bilingual Education in and for South Africa. In:
Multilingualism in Global and Local Perspectives. Selected papers from the 8th Nordic
Conference on Bilingualism, November 1-3, 2001, ed. by Kari Fraurud and Kenneth Hyltenstam,
47-62. Stockholm: Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University and Rinkeby
Institute of Multilingual Research.
?
References
International Reading Association (2001). Second language literacy instruction: A position
statement on the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: IRA.
Krashen, S. (2000) “Bilingual education, the acquisition of English, and the retention and loss of
Spanish,” In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Spanish in the U.S. Somerville. MA: Cascadilla Press.
Krashen, S. (1996) Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language
Education Associates.
Lasagabaster, D. and Doiz, A. (2003) Maturational constraints on foreign-language written
production. In M.P. Garcia Mayo and M.L. Garcia Lecumberri (eds) Age and the acquisition of
English as a Foreign Language. (pp. 136-160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada. N. (1991). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative
language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
12, 429-448.
?
References
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1994). An innovative programme for primary ESL in Quebec.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 563-579.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. LindholmLeary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of
research evidence (pp. 176-222). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001) Dual Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Macdonald, Carol. (1990). Main Report of the Threshold Project. Pretoria: The Human Sciences
Research Council.
Malherbe, Ernst Gideon. (1943). The Bilingual School. Johannesburg: CNA.
May, S. (eds.) (1999) Indigenous Community-based Education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
?
References
Mekonnen, Alemu Gebre Yohannes. (2005). Socio-Cultural and Educational Implications of Using
Mother Tongues as Languages of Instruction in Ethiopia. Master thesis. University of Oslo.
Moll, L. (1992) Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends.
Educational Researcher 21(2), 20-24.
Mothibeli, A. (2005). Cross-country achievement results from the SACMEQ 11 Project – 2000 to
2002. A quantitative analysis of education systems in Southern and Eastern Africa. Edusource
Data News No. 49. October. Johannesburg: The Education Foundation Trust.
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project. In C. Muñoz
(ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Palmer, B.C., Shackelford, V.S., Miller, S.C., & Leclere, J.T. (2007). Bridging two worlds: Reading
comprehension, figurative language instruction and the English-language learner. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50 (4), 258-266.
?
References
Patrinos, H. and Velez, E. (1996) Costs and benefits of bilingual education in Guatemala: a partial
analysis. World Bank: Human Capital Development Working Paper No. 74.
Perales, S. (2004) La adquisición de la negación en inglés por hablantes bilingües en euskaracastellano. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country.
Philippines, Republic of (2013). Republic Act No. 10533: Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.
Fifteenth Congress, Congress of the Philippines: Metro Manila. Approved May 15, 2013.
Philippines, Republic of, Department of Education (2012). Department Order No. 31, series 2012:
Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of Grades 1 to 10 of the K to 12 Basic Education
Curriculum Effective School Year 2012-2013. Approved April 17, 2012.
Pinnock, Helen (2009). Language and Education: The Missing Link. London: Save the Children
Alliance / CfBT Education Trust.
?
References
Pinnock, Helen, Pamela Mackenzie, Elizabeth Pearce, & Catherine Young (2011). Closer to home:
how to help schools in low- and middle-income countries respond to children’s language needs.
London: Save the Children Alliance / CfBT Education Trust.
Piper, Benjamin & Emily Miksic (2011). “Mother Tongue and Reading Using Early Grade Reading
Assessment to Investigate Language-of-Instruction Policy in East Africa.” In A. Gove & A.
Wetterberg (eds.) The Early Grade Reading Assessment: Applications and Interventions to
Improve Basic Literacy. RTI Press.
Porter, R.P. (1990). Forked tongue. New York: Basic Books.
Ramírez J., S. Yuen, D. Ramey & D. Pasta. 1991. Final Report: Longitudinal study of structured
English immersion strategy, early- exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for languageminority children. (Vol. I) (Prepared for U.S. Department of Education). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre
International. No. 300-87-0156.
Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research
in the Teaching of English, 30, 7-74.
?
References
Sampa, Francis. 2003. Country Case Study: Republic of Zambia. Primary Reading Programme
(PRP): Improving Access and Quality Education in Basic Schools. Working Document. ADEA
Biennial Meeting, Grand Baie, Mauritius, 3–6 December 2003.
Slavin R.E. & Cheung A. (2003) Effective Reading Programs for English Language Learners: A
Best-Evidence Synthesis. Report No. 66. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk (CRESPAR). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University. URL: www.csos.jhu.edu
Sparks, Richard L., Jon Patton, Leonore Ganschow, and Nancy Humbach (2012). ‘Do L1 Reading
Achievement and L1 Print Exposure Contribute to the Prediction of L2 Proficiency?’ Language
Learning 62:2, June 2012, pp. 473-505
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity and human
rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, Wayne and Virginia Collier. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for
Language Minority Students’ Long-term Academic Achievement. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington,
DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
?
References
Thomas, Wayne and Virginia Collier (1997). School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students.
(National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education NCBE Resource Collection Series; 9).
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Traoré, Samba. (2001). La Pédagogie Convergente: Son Expérimentation au Mali et son Impact
sur le Système Éducatif. Geneva: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.
UNESCO (2011). Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother
Tongue-based Bilingual Or Multilingual Education In The Early Years. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2008). Mother Tongue Matters: Local Language as a Key to Effective Learning. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO (2006). Promoting Literacy in Multilingual Settings. Bangkok: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2000). Education for All. Status and Trends 2000. Assessing learning achievement,
International Consultative Forum on Education for All. Paris: UNESCO.
?
References
United Kingdom. Department for International Development (2005). Case studies: Zambia
education. Retrieved from: http://www.dfid.gov.uk
Vaillancourt, François and François Grin. (2000). Language and Socioeconomic Status in Quebec:
Measurement, Findings, Determinants, and Policy Costs. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 121: 69-92.
World Bank (1995) Costs and Benefits of Bilingual Education in Guatemala. HCO Dissemination
Note No. 60.
World Bank. (2005). In their Own Language: Education for All. Education Notes. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991) “When learning a second language means losing the first,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346.
Young, Catherine (2005). “Developing Teaching/Learning Materials and Graded Reading
Materials”. In First Language First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority
Language
Contexts in Asia. UNESCO Bangkok.
?
The End. Thank you.