UNESCO on Mother Tongues As Media of Instruction
January 13th, 2009 by DJBLately it has become the mantra of a certain genre of propaganda that using English as a medium of instruction is a form of “hegemonic colonial mentality” We ought to use our local dialects and languages instead because — it is claimed — scientific studies have shown the benefits of mother tongue based instruction, especially in early schooling. We learn best in our mother tongue. In this post, I present what I believe to be the Mother Lode of those scientific studies on mother tongue instruction in the form of fifty years of study and research by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). What I have discovered studying this material is amazing. The propagandists posing as nationalists have only been presenting HALF of Unesco’s scientific findings on mother tongue instruction–by cutting out and never mentioning Unesco’s own caveats, objections and warnings on the expense, complexity and impracticality of mother tongues as media of instruction!
The House is about to pass overwhelmingly HB 5619 — An Act Strengthening and Enhancing the Use of English as Medium of Instruction – authored by Cebu Rep. Ed Gullas. But the bill is being opposed by ideological heavyweights in media and academe. For example, in its editorial, King’s English, PDI says
To be sure, the state should be in the business of looking for the best way to effectively transmit knowledge in its education system. But studies across the board show that the mother tongue is the best conveyor of instruction.
To some extent, the Gullas bill recognizes the above. It gives schools the option to use English, Filipino or the regional language as the teaching language from pre-school up to Grade 3. But from the intermediate grades up to high school, English will be the teaching language, except in Filipino as a course.
Just the same, the bill’s “English myopia” is hegemonic, and overlooks scientific evidence showing the mother tongue to be the best medium of instruction.”
Now, it has always puzzled me that those who have been making these claims never cite the original sources of this “scientific evidence” or the “across the board studies” that established the Mother Tongue Hypothesis. Now I know why–because I believe I have discovered the Mother Lode of that “evidence” for the benefits of Mother Tongue instruction in this position paper (PDF) by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco). Published in 2003, it reprises fifty years of Unesco research into mother tongue instruction and related language issues in education worldwide.
And indeed, we find in the Unesco documents substantial confirmation of the claims being made by PDI and the supporters of mother tongue instruction here in the Philippines. And more…much more! Because in this very same paper, in the very same section that praises the benefits of mother tongue instruction we also find,– lo and behold! — substantial objections and caveats to mother tongue instruction that are not mentioned by the PDI editorial. Here is an extended excerpt from the Unesco PDF which gives a far more balanced view of the use of first language or mother tongue instruction:
UNESCO DEFINITION AND SUPPORT FOR MOTHER TONGUE INSTRUCTION:
Mother tongue instruction generally refers to the use of the learners’ mother tongue as the medium of instruction. Additionally, it can refer to the mother tongue as a subject of instruction. It is considered to be an important component of quality education, particularly in the early years. The expert view is that mother tongue instruction should cover both the teaching of and the teaching through this language.
The term ‘mother tongue’, though widely used, may refer to several different situations. Definitions often include the following elements: the language(s)that one has learnt first; the language(s) one identifies with or is identified as a native speaker of by others; the language(s) one knows best and the language(s) one uses most. ‘Mother tongue’ may also be referred to as ‘primary’ or ‘first language’. The term ‘mother tongue’ is commonly used in policy statements and in the general discourse on educational issues. It is retained in this document for that reason, although it is to be noted that the use of the term ‘mother tongue’ often fails to discriminate between all the variants of a language used by a native speaker, ranging from hinterland varieties to urban-based standard languages used as school mother tongue. A child’s earliest first-hand experiences in native speech do not necessarily correspond to the formal school version of the so-called mother tongue.
It is an obvious yet not generally recognized truism that learning in a language which is not one’s own provides a double set of challenges, not only is there the challenge of learning a new language but also that of learning new knowledge contained in that language. These challenges may be further exacerbated in the case of certain groups are already in situations of educational risk or stress such as illiterates, minorities and refugees. Gender considerations cross cut these situations of educational risk, for girls and women may be ina particularly disadvantaged position. In most traditional societies, it is the girls and women who tend to be monolingual, being less exposed either through schooling, salaried labour, or migration to the national language, than their sons, brothers or husbands. Studies have shown that, in many cases, instruction in the mother tongue is beneficial to language competencies in the first language, achievement in other subject areas, and second language learning.
UNESCO CAVEATS TO MOTHER TONGUE INSTRUCTION:
The application of the principle of mother tongue instruction nevertheless is far from being the rule. Some of the difficulties encountered by the use of mother tongues as languages of instruction may include the following:
_sometimes the mother tongue may be an unwritten language;
_sometimes the language may not even be generally recognized
as constituting a legitimate language;
_the appropriate terminology for education purposes may still have
to be developed;
_there may be a shortage of educational materials in the language;
_the multiplicity of languages may exacerbate the difficulty
of providing schooling in each mother tongue;
_there may be a lack of appropriately trained teachers;
_there may be resistance to schooling in the mother tongue by the students, parents and teachers.
ETHNOLOGUE claims that there are 171 living and 4 extinct languages in the Philippine Archipelago, and lists each one along with the estimated number of active speakers. These are the MOTHER TONGUES of the various tribes of the Filipinos, some with millions like Cebuano and Tagalog, others with just a few hundred, like Agta-Aeta, or a few hundred thousand like the Spanish-based pidgin, Chavacano. Please peruse the list…it’s fascinating!
In the Comment Thread to our colleague Blackshama’s post on this topic, I already mentioned my own independently conceived objections to the Mother Tongue Hypothesis, including that the medium of instruction ought to be a written language and that the Philippines lacks the resources, both material and human, to support a plethora of mother tongues being used as media of instruction.
So I am gratified to now be able to say, just like PDI, that there is scientific evidence to support my objections to their position. In fact that scientific evidence is ironically the same source of their scientific evidence in support of mother tongue instruction. Except I am presenting ALL of Unesco’s scientific evidence!
Finally, I believe that the choice of Medium of Instruction ought to be largely informed by the needs and dictates of the Message of Instruction, meaning to say the content of the education we wish to transmit through that medium. The five subjects of the Basic Education Curriculum–English, Pilipino, Math, Science and Makabayan–and how they each may be taught is what ought to determine what language we use to teach them in, write textbooks for them, and conduct examinations and classroom work in them.
What really matters is what really works.
January 13, 2009 at 2:05 am
@Karl, Jon
i asked an isreali friend who said that in israel, hebrew is the medium of instruction, and they learn english starting 4th grade.
January 13, 2009 at 6:01 am
so GabbyD, what does that mean?
January 13, 2009 at 8:23 am
i’m sorry, i was picking up from my thread w them from blackshama’s post. jon (i think) suggested to look at israel’s policy/medium of instruction.
its probably not a coincidence that the turning point in israel, and the turning point in the bill (4th grade) is the same…
i wonder why 4th grade?…
January 13, 2009 at 9:04 am
oh ok. the unesco studies recommend use of the mother tongue up to about 3rd grade, just as Gullas’ bill has it.
January 13, 2009 at 9:39 am
to further this debate, what i really want to see is the implementation plan for this bill. the deped website is useless. sec lapuz is said to support it. But wala katiting na documentation sa rollout. i can’t even find the written version of the bill….
January 13, 2009 at 9:51 am
you nailed it gabbyd, implementations and enforcements are lacking
January 13, 2009 at 10:39 am
*nods in agreement*
January 13, 2009 at 10:58 am
Why all the fuss about language as when communities integrate into states and nations-states the process of standardization follow in their respective economies, political systems and culture.
Anglo Saxon became the predominant language English after Latin in a process of expanding their economic/political/culture influence in large parts of the world. The advantage was the the progression or addition of words from areas that the descendants of the Saxons encountered from Germanic tribes all the way to the Chinese in later centuries.
Thus English language continues to grow in the number of words.
The original numbering system from 1-0 came from India that was later adapted by the Arabs and Europe.
Eventually cultures which includes language, religious and secular beliefs will merge with the dominant one taking over.
Secular religions like capitalism and communism are on the downturn as nationalism is making a strong comeback.
All this crap about religions warfare is simply a mask to hide the rise of nationalism.
The concept of “Eretz Israel” versus the present day Arabs is a struggle of nationalism.
The Arabs (Palestinian, Jordanian, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Syrians etc) have all been separate tribes up till today. That separation helped in part by the family feud between the relatives of the prophet.
January 13, 2009 at 11:18 am
GabbyD,
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
DJB
I absolutely agree.
January 13, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Gabby,
Thanks as well.
as long as it works, we will never know until we see it get implemented.
January 13, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Beyond the language i think the blackboard has to go.
*points at this NYTimes post: At MIT, Large Lectures is going the way of the Blackboard*
January 27, 2009 at 1:28 pm
sometime during the term of sec gonzales as deped ed, he conducted an experimental based research comparing the effectiveness of teaching and learning in mother tongue versus english language instruction in–if my research notes prove me correctly–several schools in the three major language groups: ilokano, cebuano, and tagalog.
the preliminary findings proved to be worth following up, as indeed there were significant differences found in favor of mother tongue. i say worth following up because these were pilot studies. alas however upon the usurption into power by whats-her-name again?, she cancelled altogether this scientific foray. talk about looking for scientific evidence, when politicians don’t even have an iota of what that means. maybe because they learned their science in english?
djb, tell me what your first language (also interchangeably known as mother tongue) is, and i’ll tell you how your frame of thinking works. effectively, at that. darn, steven pinker, you were not read up.
January 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm
inidoro,
My mother spoke Spanish, English, and Tagalog on a daily basis, from as long as I can remember. She uttered a lot of what must pass for Latin as well, on various occasions falling on a Sunday. Through Bicolana and Bisayan yayas, I was early exposed to a romantic and soothing kind of sound that I am not sure is talking or humming, but my mother always seemed to approve of its effect on my dark and turbulent personality.
So, tell me all about how my frame of thinking works, Inidoro, though that bit about Harvard’s Steven Pinker came in garbled.
January 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm
last we exchanged djb in mlq3’s blog, you were still reading up on pinker. am curious how this went.
your exposure to various languages, as transmitted by your closest of kin, suggests one thing: you have built for yourself a rich metalinguistic awareness–which, as posted in other threads, as something that advances your cognitive processing. the more languages learned, the better. so why stick to english as the sole language mode of instruction?
January 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm
djb,
also please go to your blogsite. i’d appreciate reading your riposte from there.
cheers,
ine
January 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Why, whatever are you referring to Mr. Inidoro?
WHO is batting for a “sole language mode of instruction”–and what in the world is the “mode of instruction” –never heard this term before Inidoro.
But FYI, the Philippines has maintained a bilingual education policy since the time of President Manuel Quezon. I still support this idea, but I want to increase the time devoted to Math, Science and English to help OFWs and local scientists and enterpreneurs.
What we are discussing on this thread is the DepEd’s policy on MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION.
Just to bring you up to speed, the Medium of Instruction is both the spoken and the written language to be used in connection with each of the five subjects of the Public School Curriculum, namely, English, Pilipino, Math, Scince and English.
Obviously, this curriculum cannot be taught outside of a bilingual education policy.
Now what in the world is your beef with me regarding this “sole language mode of instruction.”?
January 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The boobs in Congress mandating a language of instruction are worried about ‘competitiveness in the world market’ while the DepEd people are worried about educating kids. Theyre trying to solve two different problems.
Forget about ideology or the ‘hegemonic colonial mentality argument’; that’s just drama queenery. What works?
January 28, 2009 at 12:57 am
djb,
its “language mode of instruction”, a term now use more prevalently in education research. not just “mode of instruction” as you conveniently protracted. just to update you, “medium of instruction” now encompasses means of learning beyond language (ask any of your aussie academic colleagues). think: “medium”. [as in what's the medium of instruction for teaching the deaf and mute?].
my beef with sole language mode on instruction is that after third grade, the law purports that english is the primary “medium” (arggh, a term so obsolete if not inappropriate, guess why?) being pushed. what the heck is wrong with bilingualism? if nothing (since in all practicality, teachers will still codeswitch anyway–they know better than these nincompoop politicians), what’s the point of enacting such a law? pogi points?
as to math and science teaching, we’ve been this before. we’re looking at the most effective way to instill in our grade and high school students to learn these subjects. you argued earlier that math concepts don’t change. and i fully agree, math concepts don’t change in whatever language. but teaching math in a foreign language altogether is totally a different matter. language changes meaning, and so hampers the understanding of the immutable concepts in mathematics. someone in this thread brought to your attention the dilemma of understanding the concept of “more” and “less”, which even among english speaking students is a indeed a concept difficult to understand. do you expect our young students to understand these things easily when they need to hurdle beyond straddling between the language of mathematics, the language of learning mathematics (i.e, language mode of instruction), and the language in the community (aka, first language)? as someone who have been asking for for scientific evidence on the effectiveness of english, i throw back the challenge to you: produce one. i have led you already to the works of jim cummins on the worthiness of bilingualism via”linguistic interdependence hypothesis”–and no, there is no such thing as “mother tongue hypothesis in educational research unless you refer to the interference of mother tongue in learning a foreign language):. show me where english works best in a country where english is adopted in the areas of mathematics and science.
clues: hungary, japan, russia. and yes, even malaysia, who have sent an astronaut in space before they reinstated english as the primary mode of language of instruction. more clues: timss results, other than canada.
January 28, 2009 at 3:33 am
@inidoro
1) what is the difference between mode and medium? as i understand it, DJB’s definition of mode is the language of instruction, as well as the language in ALL instructional materials. So can we say that mode and medium are the same?
2)
you say:
” what the heck is wrong with bilingualism?”
proponents of english mode(medium) of instruction after grade 3 have 1 major argument:
– english is important
– its good that our kids are good at it
– it is the language where most texts in science and math (other impt subjects) are written
– we need to teach kids in english so as they get good at it, and read texts in math and science.
so it is a practical argument. note that they stricly are billingual since they propose that filipino be taught in filipino.
3) mother tongue hypothesis. i dont know whether this is the accepted term, but this is what DJB used, and i interpret this to mean:
“its easier for kids to learn in the mother tongue”
as i understand it, the bill also incorporates this, as the mode of instruction can be decided at the local level (how local?) before grade 4.
if true (and there is much evidence to support this), then until grade 3 they can learn english in filipino (or whatever), and from grade 4 on, it is assumed they are proficient enough in english to progress in english in english.
3) you say:
” if nothing (since in all practicality, teachers will still codeswitch anyway”
if codeswitch, you mean, they will use whatever language is easiest, then i suggest this is the problem that we are trying to solve
we want to make learning easy, but this doesn’t mean we limit the quality of instruction just to do so!
if they teach in english, they should teach in english straight. If this is hard, then fine, we accept its hard. we don’t fold and go on the path of least resistance.
isn’t the the whole idea of learning? to learn things you didn’t know before is hard, but the idea is that with sufficient practice, it becomes easy.
teachers ought to be able to teach in straight english. or straight filipino. if not, we must retrain them to do so. This is basic, and beyond the scope of the bill in question (ie. it assumes that the teachers can use perfectly whatever language is adopted…)
January 29, 2009 at 12:40 am
1. gabby, in current educational research practices, there is conscious effort to avoid as to avoid the use of the term “medium of instruction” in simply associating it with the language mode of instruction. for “medium” encompasses a lot of things. medium is the means of relaying instruction. which means, i can use the computer, graphics calculator, the blackboard and chalk, etc. to do this. but in so doing, i could be using the classroom language to carry out the lesson through these media. yup, a semantic thingie, you can argue. but like i said, there is growing awareness to now make this distinction. hence, it is considered now more proper to use the term “language mode of instruction”. dont drop the word languge before the mode.
2. no, not strictly bilingual. in education, bilingualism has many facets. tell me which is “strictly bilingual” among the following:
(a) teach filipino in filipino and mathematics in english?
(b) teacher A teaches mathematics in english in the morning; teacher A reviews the same lesson the next day in filipino;
(c) teacher A codeswitches between english and filipino within the same subject in the same period.
the definition promoted in our bilingual language policy is (a). is this strict bilingualism? nah, that’s demarcated bilingualism (my term), a filipino model at best.
there is no argument that english is important. but if you want to talk practical sense, how would you want your student to turn out: a student knowing his scientific concepts well in the language he or she is more comfortable learning–not barring english of course? or someone who has to straddle understanding the highly technical language of science and the english language (with “mother tongue hypothesis” suggesting first language interference, assuming that english is second language, putting thus the technical scientific language as third) because the bill says that after grade 3 math and science have to be taught in english? you know where my bias lies, so
i throw back the same question, what the heck is wrong with bilingualism [i.e., (b) and (c) above] if this facilitates in the learning and teaching? i tell you, mathematicians and scientists are among the less garrulous people in society: they use the paper and the labs as their medium to express their cognitive creativity. in all likelihood, a japanese mathematician in the audience when andrew wiles was still proving the fermat’s theorem could have pretty well followed his discussion just by looking at him scribbling on the board, not even following a single english word from wiles’ mouth. here in the philippines, we have these lawmakers promoting hb 5619 in a two page sheet without even propounding the merits of doing so, and we will soon be subjected to a horrendous time listening to them on the floor as they propound on the issue in most jarring english.
(3) “mother tongue hypothesis” is a term that already exists in linguistic books and studies. it means: the first language of a person may interfere in the learning of a second language. let’s level our understanding on this term. a simple google scholar search will do. djb is a science researcher by training, but that should not readily entitle him to usurp the term out of its righful context because this pops up every now and then in the discussion of bilingualism, and thus muddle the understanding of such concept. no, mother tongue hypothesis is not–with all due respect–what djb has been propounding.
(3) teachers who couldn’t explain themselves well shouldn’t become teachers to begin with. but if–as i seem to sense it–you frown upon the use codeswitching [not the coño kind of speak, please] as a form of linguistic mongrelism, we have a different take on this matter. for me, learning is about communicating. if language evolves, let it do so as long as this bridges the community of learners and teachers. codeswitching is perfectly a legitimate mode of communication. [wag lang yung: "i'll make batok batok the ulo of these empty nutshells making bola bola in congress].
January 29, 2009 at 1:18 am
on mother tongue hypothesis:
ok. i don’t know if this was DJBs understanding of it, but it was mine. OK. i think we can all agree that the mothertongue hypothesis is true.
January 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm
you raise many good points! i think we agree more than we disagree. i’ll take small bites, focusing on the specifics u mentioned.
first, ok, lets use medium then, as we should include all teaching materials, including the language mode of instruction.
also, i agree with your general principle: the educational systems’ goal is to teach kids.
i’ll comment about ur japanese mathematician example. is it reasonable to say that this japanese person doesn’t use english to learn math? or to do math?
first a confession, i don’t know any japanese.
you seem to argue that you don’t need english to read math. I’m almost certain this is not true. there are concepts related to fermat’s last theorem’s proof in english. to identify the problem and the proof, you need to these concepts. to write about it, you need english. He probably read about it in some journal — in english.
the problem gets worse if he wants to branch off to applied math. to do/read/write applied math, you need to not only understand the math, but the field in which the math is applied.
example: an equation is made up of variables. Variables can stand for anything. Equations represent stylized forms of real world relationships. You need to explain that also.
still, you might argue that that all of these things, he read in japanese. The japanese can do that. Filipinos cannot.
to do that, we need to translate abstract concepts into filipino. thats hard. too hard.
next, you can say, we can borrow these words. At a certain point, which i think is HS math or late grade school, we would borrow more than we have native words for. There would be no gain; might as well write everything in english.
more than that — in japan, its possible to have journal articles in japanese. if not, why would anyone write technical sophisticated math? In RP, this is not the case. even if someone actually bothered to translate ALL these abstract concepts, who would write it? Who would read it?
let me summarize:
1) do you need english to read/write math? at a certain level of complexity, yes.
2) you need english to communicate what uv learned in math and science to a wider audience. so, its practical to learn english.
But, let me step back and say that i do agree that at the early age, we should teach in whatever language helps the kids learn math the best.
also, the transition to english only need not be too sudden. BUT the transition should happen.
January 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm
i think this is a great topic. educational reform is low hanging fruit. its something everyone can agree on, should agree on, and will generate great returns.
January 29, 2009 at 5:03 pm
inidoro,
The term medium of instruction and media of instruction appear in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and in the formal documents of the Congress, the DepED and Ched, so you “educational research practitioners” can consciously avoid using the term all you want, but I am constrained by the needs of the real world of the public school system. So excuse me for consciously using the term Medium of Instruction.
You are however entirely free to discourse upon modes and means and various other terms and use them with colloquial or personal meanings. But the meaning “Medium of Instruction” is not controversial. It simply refers to the chosen language to be used for teaching subjects, writing textbooks, lesson plans, quizzes, tests and examinations, and assigning homework for reports, essays and reading.
As long as that is what you mean by mode or mumu of instruction, i am not the Word Police.
January 29, 2009 at 5:11 pm
inidoro,
Regarding the Mother Tongue Hypothesis, which you seem to know from head to toe, may I ask you a few questions:
(1) How many “Mother Tongues” are there in the Philippines?
(2) Do you think that one Mother Tongue is just as good as any other Mother Tongue as Medium of Instruction for the teaching let us say of Mathematics or Science ? — (two of the five subjects in the Basic Education Curriculum, which of course is the Message of Instruction to be transmitted by the Medium of Instruction).
(3) Some UP Language Experts want to use the Mother Tongue as Medium of Instruction from Grade 1-6 in all public schools?
Do you agree with the UP Language Experts?
January 29, 2009 at 9:13 pm
hi! i would just like to ask what are the benefits of having the filipino language as th emedium of instruction in college… i need it badly for our debate in school.. thank you
January 30, 2009 at 3:15 am
good luck aiza. i don’t know any arguments in favor of filipino as medium of inst in college. other than teaching filipino lit, which is obvious…
January 30, 2009 at 3:39 am
aiza,
you probably realize that you have been given the more difficult side in the debate (the luck of the draw?)
But remember that you can “win” a debate in more ways than presenting the stronger argument (which GabbyD points out may be hard to do given the position you are asked to defend).
But here is a strategy you might consider:
During the debate, do not use even a single English sentence and conduct your entire participation in Pilipino. This will impress the teacher and or judges as well as the audience. It won’t matter what you actually say, your Medium will be your Message, and you will have made your point without actually making it!
I think this is a winning strategy because I can never get over the absurdity of all those national artists and newspaper pundits arguing for “mother tongues” as media of instruction — presenting the most eloquent arguments for it–in perfect English!
January 30, 2009 at 7:42 am
@Aiza, regarding your debate, you can point to countries like Germany, Japan and France who use their native languages at the College level. These countries all have superior educational systems to ours.
You can concede that there is a small segment of upper and middle class students that may prefer English (graduates of elitist high schools). However, if you implement Filipino, then this will help bring about more equality because this will be to the advantage of the masses.
As to the suitability of Filipino in teaching Science and Math, the advantage of English is a temporary one and owes to the lack of effort to incorporate loan words that would enrich our language. We should follow the example of the Japanese (and the French) who make extensive use of loan words.
What about English and its supposed advantage to global competitiveness and getting jobs abroad? You can say that English can still be taught as a foreign language (just like Spanish). There can also be special vocational schools for those who want to specialize in Engish language (e.g. for the Call Center industry.)
January 30, 2009 at 8:16 am
@cvj
“As to the suitability of Filipino in teaching Science and Math, the advantage of English is a temporary one and owes to the lack of effort to incorporate loan words that would enrich our language. ”
do you think this is a real argument? or a theoretical one?
certainly its possible to loan all the words, make filipino versions, etc.
but who will do it, for all fields? who will read it? who will write in it?
the japanese case cannot be directly applied. it will take generations of people to change things. its true that all language adopts words from other languages. But this is a glacial process. as a practical matter, is it practical to insist on this?
January 30, 2009 at 8:31 am
Gabbyd, a lot of the loan words have to do with technology-terms. In the case of Japanese, they seem to have done this in a matter of one generation (since high-technology is of a more recent vintage) so the process does not have to be glacial. Our linguists should just double-time (and double their effort) in admitting English loan-words (as well as Taglish) into the formal vocabulary. In this respect, it is the Filipino-language purists who are getting in the way.
January 30, 2009 at 2:47 pm
cvj is giving aiza good tips. A debate is like a chess game. These are the opening moves of a possible gambit to snare the judges’ favor in the debate.
I don’t necessarily agree with cvj’s arguments regarding germany and japan on science and math, because unlike German and Japanese, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers written in Pilipino, or textbooks or dissertations or much of anything else.
That is why although it is always theoretically possible to demonstrate that you CAN teach science and math in pilipino if you try really hard, why in the world would you?
It’s like using a pencil sharpener instead of a can opener to open a tin can. You can do it, but why would you?
The Medium of Instruction is not just the spoken part of instruction, but more importantly the written part. Choosing Pilipino to teach math and science is not an impossibility–it’s just not the best possible choice given the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Apart from a rhetorical demonstration of feasibility, its ultimate practical utility would yield strictly diminishing returns.
(You gotta think of a rebuttal to this Aiza, because the Negative Side will bring it up.)
January 30, 2009 at 11:33 pm
gabbyd,
on the contrary, andrew wiles had to pick up from the takayama-shimura conjecture (both authors are japanese) to further develop and complete his proof to fermat’s theorem. wiles, i assume, did not have to learn japanese, nor french in which fermat scribbled his theorem . it is sufficient for him to understand the language of complex algebra for him to follow their works.
mathematics has its own set of registers that make up its own language system. i reckon you’ve read that calculus was developed separately but nearly almost at the same time by englishman isaac newton and german gottfried leibnitz? secretive of their individual works, it is reasonable to assume the two never generously swapped ideas in either language, if at all a correspondence was even made. the separate but contemporaneous achievement by these two great minds only further debunks the notion that for us to understand math, we need to understand either english or german first. nah, it just so happened that our colonial-driven past fed us call center-accented pinoys with mathematics textbooks in english, minus perhaps the brain for the subject among many. yet come to think of it, math is just “out there” to be discovered by anyone, not excluding the deaf and the mute. english language will not solve the mystery of how the great pyramids of egypts were built, deep scientific thinking will.
mathematics relies heavily on semiotics as part of its language expression, i.e., it is governed by set of symbols, numbers, representations, patterns, technical definitions, etc. ask an Indonesian, for example, to solve this arithmetic problem without requiring him to read it in english: 1 + 1 = ? do you think he’d be stumped to read the symbols 1 and + , thus paralysing him from solving it because he could not read 1 as “one” and + as “plus”, because unlike us, he is not trained to do the routine in english since kindergarten? do you think bahasa indonesia does not have equivalent vocabularies for terms contained in this mathematical phrase? the english language did not invent the number system nor its symbols. if you believe otherwise, you’re only giving the arabs further reason to wage war on the western world. then you can expect the chinese, the french and the german to forge tactical alliance with them.
* * *
djb,
that’s alright. like i said, it’s just a semantic thingie, so let’s not quibble over this mumu. i myself was guilty of using the term extensively in the past, until i was enlightened by an english native speaking academician who sought clarification on what i exactly meant by medium. in fact it is simpler yet more straightforward to use the term “language of learning and teaching” (lolt), as many research studies have already started to adopt. but no, i won’t take the slip against anybody. oh well, not quite. read on.
according to ethnolinguist mcfarland, there are 118 living dialects in the country, grouped roughly into 8 major regional languages. the language experiment conducted by gonzales, at the time when he was dep ed sec, was based on testing the effectiveness of teaching and learning a few subjects in regional languages, wherein a rich cauldron of local dialects can find common flavor and association. the success of the experiment (which this current leader rudely interrupted–boy does she love doing that!) would have left the dep ed worrying less about reproducing the forewords of english-translated textbooks to only a few categories of major regional languages. only eight—now that’s not quite a humongous job, is it? point is, i’d rather see huge government allocation well spent on fertilising the mind of the youth than fertilising the pockets of a few crooks.
on mother tongue education: djb, i said it before, i’ll say it again: why can’t we push for a more genuine form of bilingualism that neither segregates or inhibits the use of language in specific curriculum, like as if there are territorial boundaries to protect (mathematics in english only? arrgh!!!). i am all for the learning in english (and the use of english worded textbooks which need not even be translated), but this principal “medium” should never preclude the accommodation of mother tongue to aid in learning and teaching. speaking of aid, was a public hearing ever conducted by gullas “in aid of legislation”, much less “in aid of enlightenment,” before drafting his bill?
the u.p. language experts—and i base this solely on my suspicion–are looking at the european model of bilingual education, in which english is gradually introduced in grade 5. again i refer you to cummin’s studies on ‘linguistic interdependence hypothesis’ which echoes this length of time for the average young mind to master the first language. introducing english at a very early stage will only send mix and garbled signals, made complicated by the mother tongue hypothesis. this is the kind of experience that generally reflects the language ordeal of most public school learners we have in this country. ever heard of the term semilingual—an individual who is incompetent in both the use of the english and the mother tongue? semilinguals are what most public school learners are. that’s because there is strong dissonance between the home language and the language in school, where neither one lends support to the other. [gullas, in a press release in december, believes that constant exposure to english will enhance and strengthen our students’ facility of the language. and he’s right. but this means that when provincial schoolchildren go planting rice after school hours, the law must strictly enforce that children speak to their ta-thai and na-nhai in english only. that’s constancy at best.]
going back to the european model: don’t you agree with me that many of the educated europeans do speak highly coherent and grammatical english much better than, say, your regular neighborhood aussie blokes (you’re now based in oz, aren’t you?). that’s probably because, conscious of the nuances between one’s mother tongue and a learned foreign language, there is higher metalinguistic awareness among diglossic learners not to take the wide linguistic differences between two languages for granted. this conscious (and sub-) effort does, however, bear good fruit: it enhances one’s cognitive and linguistic processing, as many language experts speculate. for this reason, europeans do not mutilate the english language like americans do. [hey, we managed to speak spanish functionally well during college even if this was taught to us for only 4 years. that’s metalinguistic awareness in action.]
in the u.s., its congress now requires that all educational reform bills (alarmingly, a bill to them will read like a thesis!) would have to rely on evidence-based research before they can be effected. this means, experimental studies need to be conducted in order to validate claims on the effectiveness of any proposed reform before or even during the course of its implementation. former dep ed sec gonzales tried this path with his pilot study conducted in several regions during erap’s time. alas, this was quickly junked by barging elitist leaders with—to paraphrase sen Santiago—the mindset of microbes who could not appreciate gonzales’s approach.
time for me to throw this question: has anybody seen how hb 5619 is crafted and framed? i haven’t, but have seen the earlier clone hb 4701 co-authored by the same principal author. perhaps it’s reasonable for me to assume that because we have hard working legislators, the updated hb 5619 is now much richer by 2 words, which—as in hb 4701 that had consolidated the earlier hb 0305—can still be contained in 4 pages! only 4 frigging pages for a measure that affects greatly the educational formation of our youth. horror of horrors, the only few terms it defined in one-liner briefs were: medium of instruction [which only shows the obsolescence on the line of author's thinking by adopting this antiquated term. talk about keeping apace with global competitiveness: can old dogs ever learn new tricks?], school year, parents teachers and community association, regional or native language, and academic subjects—the brevity of these definitions all falling collectively under 70 words. besides these and a bed of other legalese, there is no intelligent exposition—nothing at all—as regards its relevance in education. it’s sole legal driving rationale—why, english will make us ‘world class labor force.’ yeah, right. [*hello, this is your world servant on the line, how may i help you sir?*]
between u.p. language experts who’ve spent at least 4 years of doctoral studies and a school of microbes passing a 4 page sh*t of vacuous legislative proposal, who should we better listen to?
January 31, 2009 at 12:03 am
aiza,
to rebut those in the negative side, i suggest you give them a test, give the instruction in filipino.
1. hanapin ang sagot kung ang tatlo ay dadagdagan pa ng isa?
2. ipaliwanag kung ano ang mangyayari sa halaman na hindi sinisikatan ng araw?
no one can debate that you just gave your instruction in filipino.
January 31, 2009 at 12:13 am
djb, exclude, not preclude. my bad.
January 31, 2009 at 12:37 am
the japanese case cannot be directly applied. it will take generations of people to change things. its true that all language adopts words from other languages. But this is a glacial process. as a practical matter, is it practical to insist on this?
glacial, gabby? go to bohol, island of chocolate hills that may have taken two ice ages to grow. there’s one professor in a university there who teachers mathematics to engineering students in cebuano. i suppose his students managed to pass the board exam for the school still exists up to now.
seriously, what is so difficult in explaining abstract concepts in mathematics in a local language (use loan words, we’re so good in doing this! in fact, there is no need to translate english mathematics terms into filipino), when language–any language for that matter–is merely an expression of the abstraction we have in mind?
January 31, 2009 at 12:50 am
djb, preclude is okay. i take my earlier correction back. either way, whatever. hehe. [metalinguistic awareness working over confusion.]
February 10, 2009 at 7:34 am
i have a three year old daughter who is very fluent and articulate in ilocano, which is the language we speak at home. since we live in manila, how is this going to be an advantage or a disadvantage when she starts going to school?
February 10, 2009 at 8:28 am
@iinodoro ni emilie on January 30th, 2009 11:33 pm
indeed, i concur that the japanese and germans can do this. they have a developed language where they have translated the relevant concepts into their own language (japanese, written and spoken, or german) and have had technical intellectual traditions in their own languages.
we do not have this tradition.
but in filipino/tagalog, its difficult. admittedly, its not impossible. its just impractical.
i’m not convinced that filipino can be used for applied or theoretical math, written or spoken as it is now.
if we borrow to make up for the deficit, might as well learn english, as we will borrow most of it anyway.
your example is 1+1=?. i am with you on this one. for basic stuff, lets teach it in whatever language the child already knows best.
but beyond basics, HS algebra and beyond, then its too impractical to borrow all the technical terms.
@inodoro ni emilie on January 31st, 2009 12:37 am
lets say we borrow the words, as you suggest.
most of the words will be in english (or whatever foreign language).
the prof you cite uses english text, and the test is written in english.
the reason he uses cebuano-english mix while lecturing, is that this is the easy way to teach coz the students didn’t know enough english talk in english.
the goal of school is to get the kids to be proficient in a language… ANY language. To speak in straight sentences.
the fact that the prof uses cebuano-english mix is that the students didn’t learn enough english before graduating HS.
the prof is FORCED to do this. this is a second best solution…
February 10, 2009 at 8:33 am
@khalim concepcion on February 10th, 2009 7:34 am
this i think is the practical issue that DJB identified.
what if in a locality, there are kids whose mother tongue is different?
what if in a locality, there are no obvious candidates for mother tongue?
which one will be used? in MM, what happens to immigrants from the north, visayas, mindanao?
one response might be english as the common language. or pilipino.
another would be segregation at the grade school level. honestly, khalim, because there are no details yet from the deped as to the implementation, we don’t know what’ll happen.
February 24, 2009 at 9:40 am
i was speaking w a korean friend today…
he told me that for early math education, its conducted in korean, until college calculus. (they have a korean word for derivative!). But the more advanced it is, the more they use english phrases mixed with korean…
the way we can do it would be the same, except we would do the switch over earlier, in grade school
February 24, 2009 at 10:00 am
GabbyD,
Korean is a written language that is even older than English. That’s the whole key. The Mother Tongue hypothesis is all wet because it is not just the speaking part that is important, but the writing part. None of our languages, even Tagalog is a true written language. I claim these were invented during the colonial period and that is why they do not “take” they way Korean, Japanese or Chinese do.
The Medium of Instruction must be a Written Language, otherwise you cannot teach Reading, Writing and ‘Rightmetic!
February 24, 2009 at 12:40 pm
@DJB
Filipino is not a written language… i wonder what language i used in filipino class all those years :)
but i largely agree. i think we need to shift to english as medium/mode of instruction as soon as possible. Grade 4 might be the time for transition.
But the kids need to learn english first before that can happen. thats the first 4 or five years of elementary.
but nga, mas maaga ang transition natin kaysa sa mga koreano.
they move to english at the highest levels of math and science. we can/should do so much earlier.
February 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm
GabbyD:
Don’t you find it at all strange that the Filipino language you were using all those years are in a Graeco-Roman Alphabet??
February 24, 2009 at 1:17 pm
What I mean is, the written Tagalog (okay, okay, Pilipino) that we were all taught is all rendered in an alphabet that could not have been in existence in this archipelago before 1521.
February 24, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Hi DJB,
What spoken language is related to the Alibata? Do you think our linguists should’ve reverted to the Alibata?
February 24, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Mike,
Surely not Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, Pampango, Bicolano, Hiligaynon or even Tausug! It may be Arabic or Sanskrit in origin. But all the modern Philippine languages have romanized written forms dating from Spanish and American times.
Wikipedia has this article on alibata or baybayin, saying it is Javanese…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baybayin
November 6, 2009 at 7:35 am
Funnt how the English-Tagalog policy of the Philippines is akin to the English-Spanish policy of California: it puts the ‘other’ minorities into disadvantage(in the case of California, people other than Hispanics) especially Asians. A lot of Hispanic immigrants now don’t care about learning English for the sake of communication with non-Spanish speakers. In a similar way, the culture of the other ethnic groups particularly the ’smaller’ minorities(Igorots, Aetas, Pangasineses) are sacrificed for the promostion of the Tagalog culture as “the” Filipino culture.