Curriculum Forum for

Understanding Best Practices in

Mother Tongue-Based
Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)
in the Philippines
Dr. Alan Williams
Dr. Romylyn Metila
Lea Angela Pradilla
Melissa Marie Digo

31 July 2014
9:00 AM to 3:00 PM
Balay Kalinaw
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City
 RESEARCH AIMS AND JUSTIFICATION

The implementation of Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE),

as a part of the introduction of the K to 12 curriculum, represents a significant
innovation in schooling in the Philippines. The potential reward of mother tongue
instruction is the achievement of higher outcomes by children because they are
learning in a language that is familiar to them. The consolidation of the children’s
mother tongue provides a foundation for the development of literacy skills and the
learning of the additional languages of Filipino and English.

Mother tongue education has previously been implemented in many South East
Asian countries, including in some small communities in the Philippines (Kosonen
& Young, 2009). The current study seeks to understand what is happening in the
widespread implementation of mother tongue as the medium of instruction in
Department of Education (DepEd) schools across the country.

RESEARCH PLAN AND DESIGN

The linguistic diversity of The Philippines means

that mother tongues vary according to the size of
their speech communities, and consequently, the
extent to which teaching resources may be
available. The nature of these languages, in terms
of number of speakers, and status both locally
and regionally, vary considerably, with some
being very localized with less than a million
speakers, and others such as Cebuano having
over 15 million speakers. Some MTB-MLE
programs are using dialects of Tagalog, which are
closely related to Filipino. While one mother
tongue is dominant in some schools and
communities, there are also schools and
communities where several mother tongues are
used (Gonzalez 1998, Young 2011).

Figure 1. Retrieved from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_
of_the_Philippines

1
To account for this diversity, the following language contexts will be researched:

 Mother tongues with more than 2 million speakers (excluding Tagalog), such
as Cebuano, Ilocano or Hiligaynon;
 Mother tongues with fewer than 2 million speakers
 Mother tongue programs teaching a dialect of Tagalog (that is distinct from
Filipino)
 Mother tongue programs in linguistically diverse schools and communities
(MTB-MLE programs in communities and schools where a number of different
mother tongues are spoken).

The following questions guided the research:

1. What challenges have schools faced, and what strategies have successful
MTB-MLE schools used, in implementing MTB-MLE?

2. How have challenges and strategies related to the context dynamics of the
MTB-MLE program, such as the nature and status of the MT, community
involvement and support?

Figure 2 shows the phases of the study with their different purposes, time-frames
and focus.

Figure 2. Phases of the Study

2
 CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL RESEARCH

This study will build on existing research into small-scale implementations of

mother tongue education in the Philippines that have been strongly supported by
communities and Non-Government Organisations. The study will investigate the
challenges and successful strategies in regular Philippine schools in a variety of
contexts across the country. It will also contribute to the implementation of mother
tongue based education by documenting the way it is developing in the Philippines
and how it compares with approaches in other countries.

PHASE 1 METHODOLOGY

Figure 3 shows the languages and communities in which data was collected in
Phase 1 of the study.

Mother tongues Mother tongues Mother tongues Linguistically

with more than with fewer than that use a dialect diverse schools and
2 million 2 million speakers of Tagalog Communities
speakers

Pangasinan
Iloko Minasbate Tagalog Iloko &
Tagalog

Northern Southeastern Bulacan Pangasinan

Luzon Luzon Marinduque
Figure 3. Language Contexts
Sample

In each context a pioneer school and a school new to MTB-MLE were selected for
study in consultation with DepEd division coordinators. In each school,
questionnaires and interviews obtained information and perceptions of principals
and teachers in mother tongue classrooms. Observations were made of mother
tongue classrooms, photographs were taken to illustrate how children are exposed
to different languages in their classrooms and schools. The data that were collected
were analysed using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo 10. This allowed

3
the analysis of complex descriptive and visual data into categories that enabled
identification of patterns and correlations.

Participating on the study were eight schools and school administrators, five MTB-
MLE coordinators, 32 mother tongue teachers and 56 parents of mother tongue
pupils.

RESULTS

The data revealed that many challenges and strategies applied across all contexts.
These can be divided into four categories:

• Language refers to the status and nature of the MT and all other perceptions and
beliefs about it.

• Materials refers to the development and production of all kinds of lesson

resources which include teacher-made or DepEd-provided materials and those
produced by other publishers or individuals.

• Instruction refers to teaching and learning concerns, including teaching strategies

and classroom practices. Comment on this may be made by administrators,
teachers, parents or students.

• Program refers to program dynamics, logistics, and MTB-MLE implementation

activities that are beyond the classroom level, such as teacher training, campaign
mobilization, delivery of Learner’s Materials (LMs), and program monitoring.

Table 1 (refer to pages 8 and 9) provides an overview of the identified challenges

and strategies across contexts presented in descending order of the frequency in
which they were observed. The colors used to shade the challenges column have
darker tones to represent a higher frequency and lighter tones to represent the
lower frequency across the contexts. The letters L, S, T, LD (in parentheses) refer to
the four linguistic contexts.

4
Particular Challenges and Strategies in the Four Language Contexts

The data also provided insights into particular challenges and strategies that were
evident in each of the four language contexts.

Large Language Context

In the large language context a challenge arose because the Teacher’s Guides did
not always match the Learner’s Materials. In addition, it was also learned that there
were publications such as magazines and books that were used by teachers to
enhance the students’ exposure to the mother tongue.

Small Language Context

In the small language context a number of challenges related to perceptions that

the mother tongue is less challenging to learn than Filipino or English. The language
used in some learners’ materials was different to the mother tongue used in the
school. Schools in small language contexts developed a wide range of strategies to
meet the challenges they faced. These included school-level standardization of the
mother tongue, repetition of the same content in different languages, and parents
re-learning the mother tongue along with their children. Teachers used English for
classroom management and students used code-switching to express their
answers. Teachers also gave projects about math terminology in the mother
tongue.

Tagalog Context

In the Tagalog context challenges arose from the similarity between Tagalog and
Filipino. Teachers saw overlaps between mother tongue and Filipino competencies
and had difficulty identifying spiraling of learning outcomes in these subjects.
Children were unfamiliar with some mother tongue orthography and some
teachers felt that they had inadequate support and training. They also needed to
accommodate migrant students whose mother tongue was not Tagalog. Their
strategies included the use of their own money and time to develop and produce
teaching materials. Schools shared the materials they produced. They also
produced a Tagalog translation of the teacher guide, which was written in English.

5
Linguistically Diverse Context

In the linguistically diverse context the greatest challenge was the limited
development of a pedagogic discourse in the mother tongues. The strategies
included parents hiring mother-tongue-speaking tutors for their children, teachers
using pictures and realia, and the use of language mapping data to organize class
sections and assign multilingual teachers.

The second research question, about how the nature and status of the mother
tongue affect the nature of challenges and strategies in different contexts, can be
answered in the following way: more efficient implementation of mother tongue
education can be expected where mother tongues have a stable status and co-exist
with Filipino and English.

The next phases of the study will explore the extent to which these challenges and
strategies are found in a wider range of contexts across the country. The third phase
will provide detailed study of good practices in MTB-MLE in each of the four
language contexts.

Reflections and Issues

The Phase 1 data raise questions about aspects of the implementation of mother
tongue in the early years. The first of these is how perceptions about the limited
utility of local languages, vis-à-vis Filipino and English, can be addressed. The
second issue lies in the way some strategies, such as the use of translation, conflict
with the rationale of MTB-MLE, which aims to maximize the use of mother tongue
in the classroom. Another issue is the extent to which Tagalog/Filipino has become
a mother tongue for children in traditionally non-Tagalog areas. There was also
some evidence of some school administrators and teachers experiencing a feeling
of ‘forced compliance’ regarding the use of the mother tongue as the medium of
instruction. At issue here is how these teachers can take a more positive approach
to their implementation.

The Phase 1 data suggests that the Philippines is in the early stages of implementing
an approach to MTB-MLE that reflects the complex and diverse multilingual
character of the country.

6
 REFERENCES

Gonzalez, A. (1998). The language planning situation in the Philippines. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Studies. 19, 487-525.

Haddad, C. (ed). (2007). Advocacy kit for promoting multilingual education:

Including the excluded. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.

Young, C. (2011). Enablers and constraints of an effective and sustainable mother-

tongue based multilingual education policy in the Philippines.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bangor.

7
Table 1: Challenges and Strategies by Dimensions and Contexts of the Study
CHALLENGES STRATEGIES
LANGUAGE
Limited use and value of the MT in areas
outside the community (L, S, T, LD)
The community’s higher value/regard for
English (L, S, T, LD)
School-level standardization based on spelling, pronunciation, and word
Lack of standardization of the MT (L, S) choice of terms with several versions (S)
Some children’s use of non-academic Teachers’ use of on-the-spot correction and modeling (T)
register of the MT (S, T)
Limited MT pedagogic discourse (LD) Use of English for classroom mgmt, class routines, greetings, etc. (S)
Parents’ hiring of a MT-speaking tutor (LD)
Parents’ low proficiency in the MT (S) Parents’ re-learning of MT along with their children (S)
Perception that the MT is a less challenging
language to learn (S)
Preference for Filipino because of prestige
or practicality (LD and S)
MATERIALS
Use of school funds (e.g. MOOE) for materials production (L, S, T, LD)
Teachers’ continuous production of IMs (L, S, T, LD)
Teachers’ asking for IM copies from friends and colleagues (L, T, LD)
Incomplete or late delivery of IMs in MT (L, Coordinators’ encouragement for big and small book production (L, S)
S, T, LD) Teachers’ use of local magazine as additional MT resource material (L)
Teachers’ sharing of pool of resources in the same grade level (T)
Organizing a school program for materials production (T)
School head’s borrowing of materials from schools with more resources
(LD)
Teachers’ substitution of unknown terms with MT words actually used in
the community (L, T)
Non-contextualization of LMs (L, S, T, LD) Teachers’ do on-the-spot translation during instruction (T)
Teachers’ use of texts/materials that pupils really know (T)
Teachers’ use of personal gadget and equipment for class if school has
Limited use of technology (L, S, T, LD) no/limited resources (T)
Conduct of meetings for sharing of ideas and materials among MT
teachers and supervisors (L, S)
Time and expenses demanded by materials Teachers’ overtime work to produce materials (T)
production (L, S, T, LD) Parents’ monetary contribution for materials reproduction (T)
Parents’ donation of books to school library (L)
Teachers’ use of own money to augment insufficient school funds (T)
TGs are in English (L, T, LD) Teachers’ translation of English TG to the MT (T)
TGs do not match pupils’ LM (L)
Mismatch between children’s MT and School heads’ and teachers’ request for LMs in Filipino (S)
language used in LMs (S)

8
 CHALLENGES STRATEGIES
INSTRUCTION
Long MT words for math (L, S, T, LD) Teachers’ use of English terms for math (T)
Limited use of the MT for academic Teachers’ use of English terms which pupils already know. (T)
purposes (L, S, T, LD)
Teachers’ reading of local magazine in the MT (L)
Teachers’ low proficiency in the MT (L, S, T, Teachers’ use of code-switching to get by inadequate MT vocabulary (L,
LD) T, LD)
Teachers get practice by using the MT as medium of instruction (T)
Teachers’ use of translation to deepen explanation (L, S, T, LD)
Teachers’ use of translation during assessment (L, S, T, LD)
Teachers’ use of Filipino for pupils who do not speak the MT yet (S, LD)
Teachers’ use of code-switching to avoid profound MT vocabulary (S, LD)
Parents’ perception of children’s difficulty Use of drills on MT terms for colors, shapes, numbers, etc. (S, LD)
in adjusting to the MT as MOI (L, T, S, LD) Teachers’ translation of explanation to all languages of the pupils (S, LD)
Parents’ use of demonstration to explain math concepts (L)
Students’ use of code-switching to express answers (S)
Teachers’ use of realia (LD)
Teachers’ use of pictures (LD)
Parents’ hiring of a MT-speaking tutor (LD)
Parents’ perception that children lag
behind in other languages (L, S, LD) School head’s program monitoring (T)
Pupils’ perceived repetition of lessons in Teachers connect similarities of MT/English/Filipino to one another (S)
language classes (S)
Parents’ preference for English as MOI in Giving projects on numbers in their corresponding MT equivalent (S)
math (S)
Teachers’ difficulty to distinguish learning Conduct of meetings to identify similar competencies and modify
competencies and subject matter activities and instructional materials for similar competencies (T)
differences between Filipino and MT (T)
Teachers’ confusion about spiraling for MT Conduct of workshops on teaching MT and Filipino by supervisors (T)
and Filipino subjects (T)
Children’s unfamiliarity with MT letters and Use of drills on MT vocabulary items (S)
sounds (T)
PROGRAM
Teachers’ feeling of forced compliance with
the policy (L, S, T, LD)
Establishing strong linkage among the school, division, and regional
offices. (L)
Limited program advocacy (L, S, T, LD) School head’s use of people skills to encourage stakeholders (T)
Conduct of more school projects to keep parents engaged/involved. (T)
Conduct of a general assembly of parents and community officials (T)
Mismatched MOI and MT (S, LD) Use of language mapping data to determine program MT (LD)
Teachers’ translation of LMs to the pupils’ MT (LD)
Weak stakeholder support (L, S) Giving of homework (S)
Inconsistency between program policies Establishing strong linkage among the school, division, and regional
and activities (S, T) offices. (L)
Limited number of teachers sent to training
(S, T)
Inadequate support for MT teaching by Featuring teachers’ felt concerns in locally organized trainings (T)
provided trainings (T)
Accommodation of non-MT speaking Forming classes according to pupils’ MT and assigning multilingual
migrant students (T) teachers (LD)

9
10