Mother Tongue Beyond Grade 3

?Mother Tongue Beyond Grade 3

Firth McEachern, 1st International Research Conference on K-12 Education, Legazpi City, The Philippines, Aug 20-22, 2013

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

Outline

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 pre-school 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….


?

Implementing Guidelines of Grades 1-10 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 low- and 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 low- and 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 2nd-language 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).”


?

“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.”


?

“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).”


?

“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)”

?

“ ‘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.”


?

“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).”


?

“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).”


?

“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.”


?

“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 StudiesWhat 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.

English reading achievement levels of students over time, for different education models

Additive

Additive

Late-exit

Early-exit

Subtractive(No

MT)

(from Thomas & Collier, 1997:53)

English reading achievement levels of students over time, for different language-in-education 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.

?

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 teacher-centered pedagogy, just like the traditional French-only teachers (ET).

Teac

hers

’ abi

lity

to e

ngag

e

Teachers allowed to use MT in first two grades (CI & CP)

Teachers never allowed

?

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.


?Retrieved from http://wikitravel.org/en/Ethiopia on 19 August 2013.

http://wikitravel.org/en/Ethiopia

http://wikitravel.org/en/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 Pedagogie 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).

• Pedagogie 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

Extrapolated from Ramirez 1991, Thomas & Collier 1997, 2002; correlated with Macdonald 1990 and Heugh 2002

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)

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.


?

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 late-immersion 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)


?

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 early-start 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 MT-based 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 cross-linguistic 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 late-exit 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 long-term 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 MLEPart 6

Linguistic developmentLinguistic 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 changePacing. 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.


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.


MaterialsMaterials 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-by-step” 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 factorsExternal 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?

05

10152025

Freq

uenc

y

What subjects, in your opinion, would be suitable for MT beyond Grade 3?

Science Math AP EPP/TLE MAPEH EsP0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Subject

Freq

uenc

y

What language should be prioritized as MOI in secondary level?

Mother Tongue

Filipino English Other0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Freq

uenc

y

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 Plans-Part 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

SUBJECT

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

SUBJECT

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…

Significant transition after Grade 6

Extended MLE Model

SUBJECT

K-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Filipino

English

Science n/a

Math

AP

EPP/TLE n/a

MAPEH

EsP

MT

Staggered transition

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

SUBJECT

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.


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).

SUBJECT

K-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Filipino

English

Science n/a

Math

AP

EPP/TLE n/a

MAPEH

EsP any any any any

MT


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.

SUBJECT

K-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Filipino

English

Science n/a

Math

AP

EPP/TLE n/a

MAPEH

EsP any any any any

MT n/a n/a n/a n/a

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.


SUBJECT

K-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Filipino

English

Science n/a

Math

AP

EPP/TLE n/a

MAPEH

EsP

MT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

“Sink or Swim” Early-Exit MLE Model

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 (MTE or MTF), 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 L1L2 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.


?

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.


?

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?


?

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 10Filipino

English

Science n/a

Math

AP

EPP/TLE n/a

MAPEH

EsP

MT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Subject K-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10FilipinoEnglishScience n/aMathAPEPP/TLE n/aMAPEHEsP any any any anyMT

Early-Exit MLE Model

like D.O. 31, s.12 (w/ sharp transition)

Extended MLE Model

(w/ staggered transition)

Submersion Education

(no development of L1, poor

development of L2’s)

Early-Exit MT transition

(incomplete development of L1

and L2’s as medium of instruction shifts)

Extended MT transition

(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 a l’Ecole Primaire. Evaluation de l’Ecole Experimentale. Niamey: Ministere de l’Education de Base, Edition 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 Sub-Saharan 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 language-minority 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, 18-23 September 1995, ed. by Karsten Legere, 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’Education Pour Tous. Selection d’articles presentes a l’occasion de la consultation regionale sur l’Education 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. Lindholm-Leary, 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 euskara-castellano. 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 language-minority 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 Systeme Educatif. 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, Francois and Francois 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.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/

The End. Thank you.

tapos na tabi

Documents

Mother Tongue Beyond Grade 3