Commentary
Six years is good but eight years is better
By: Ricardo Ma. Duran NolascoPhilippine Daily Inquirer
One of 10 things that President Benigno Aquino promised to fix in the country’s basic education relates to the medium of instruction. While campaigning for the presidency in 2010, his exact words were:
“From pre-school to Grade 3, we will use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction while teaching English and Filipino as subjects. From Grades 4-6(7), we will increasingly use English as the medium of instruction for science and math and Filipino for Araling Panlipunan (social studies). For high school, English should be the medium of instruction for science, math and English; Filipino for AP, Filipino and tech-voc education.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The phrase “increasingly use English as medium of instruction for science and math and Filipino for Araling Panlipunan” can only be interpreted as the continued use of the learner’s first language (L1) as primary medium of instruction (MOI) throughout the elementary grades. It does not mean that English and Filipino will become the MOI starting Grade 4 as some have misinterpreted the phrase to mean.
The President’s intentions are clear. Before his term ends in 2016, he wants to institute an honest to goodness mother tongue-based multilingual education program (MTBMLE) to replace the outmoded bilingual program laid down by Marcos in the early 1970s. He also wants to improve on the Arroyo administration’s Department Order No. 74, issued in 2009, which already provides for the L1 as the learning medium up to at least Grade 3.
Language-in-education research worldwide has consistently shown that students learn better and faster when they are taught in their L1. The best results are achieved when the L1 is used for at least six to eight years as learning medium and the L2 is taught strongly to non-native learners before this becomes a MOI. On the other hand, the worst results have been recorded whenever children begin education in an L2, or when they are exited early after two to three years of L1 education.
It is unfortunate that education authorities have refused to heed the research in designing the K-to-12 program. Under the new K-to-12 curriculum, an early-exit program, already discredited by international studies, has been put in place in which the L1 will be implemented as MOI only up to Grade 3, followed by an abrupt transition to the L2s in Grade 4. This assumes that learners can both learn to listen, read, write, think and speak two new languages in a matter of three short years.
Cognitive development and language development are inextricably tied. We cannot think in a language that we don’t know. In developing deeper thinking skills, we must use a language that allows us to examine ideas and articulate our own thought processes. Those thinking skills will transfer to other languages once L2 fluency is developed enough to express thoughts and ideas.
But beginning education by assuming that learners can learn to think and speak well in two new languages at the same time is incongruous. The right pedagogy is to let all Filipino learners develop critical thinking skills using the language they already think in and then teach L2s sufficiently before attempting to transition thinking in the L2s.
The K-to-12 program does not differ too much from the old bilingual education (BE) program. However, it was not by any means based on the principles of BE as articulated by global educators. In other countries, BE includes the learners’ L1 and one other language (L2) and is premised on enabling deep learning through the L1 while developing strong skills in the L2. Learners can thus use both languages for thinking, creating, analyzing and evaluating.
Teaching an L2 should follow second language learning principles, whereby the teacher uses only an L2 that the learners already understand and build a little on that each day. The deliberateness that the teacher exercises in selecting the language of instruction directly redounds to the learners’ benefit, as they actually learn well each day’s target. Merely exposing learners to a lot of L2, based primarily on teacher talk is far less effective than carefully choosing daily targets which are quantifiable. Teachers who insist that their students only speak if they can do so with correct grammar only serve to effectively silence them, and thus stifle learning.
Valenzuela City Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo points out that the K-to-12 curriculum must recognize that oral language development is a prerequisite for both L1 and L2 literacy. Developing the listening and speaking skills of children should come first and is the basis for making every Filipino a reader in the L1 and in the L2. This is ultimately tied up with the number of years that the L1 is used in developing the cognitive and linguistic skills of the learner. Six years is the absolute minimum but eight years is better. Three years is the worst. (To be concluded next week)
Ricardo Ma. Duran Nolasco, PhD (rnolasco_upmin@yahoo.com) is an associate professor in linguistics at UP Diliman. He is the president of the 170+ Talaytayan MLE Inc., and is the adviser on first language education initiatives of the Eggie Apostol Foundation.
More from this Column:
Recent Stories:
