[In] Significance of the Use of Mother-Tongue in the Teaching of English Language By Sarah Mae Faith D. Zamora
The present curriculum which Philippine education has adapted in schools claims to be based on successful researches and studies conducted to address effective second language teaching. But what this fails to acknowledge is the fact that the role of oral language development in the early grades is a strong foundation to learning reading and writing in first and second language. Having the first language as a medium of instruction on the first three years of grade school and shifting to English and Filipino in years after ignores the effect of the abrupt shift in student’s language acquisition. I do not completely disagree with the Department of Education’s decision in adapting this new curriculum, but most of its implication fails to recognize certain difficulties our students are to encounter. Furthermore, the use of the first language or Mother Tongue in the teaching of English language is limited, bounded and partial. In this paper I’ll be discussing both the significance and insignificance of using mother-tongue as a medium of instruction, especially in the teaching of English language. The Philippines is known to be the third-largest English speaking country in the world. We have lived up to this label up to this day, using English as a primary medium in schools, business and news. This idea of being great at English have grown on us Filipinos that we take pride in being able to speak the language fluently. I am not an exception this idealism, to be perfectly honest. It has been implied to us, growing up, that being fluent in this language means that you are one step ahead than those who are not that great. This is why the sudden shift in the curriculum, using the mother-tongue as a medium of instruction, raised eyebrows and concern in most Filipinos who have primarily been educated using English in the early years. The idea seems to question our education before this was introduced. What was wrong with that? Well, the Department of Education could draw up a list to anyone who asks. Their
primary reason was that this is already proven to be effective in other countries, purely based on research and studies conducted by linguists and language scholars. We will not be seeing how effective this is going to be on our country not until a few years from now, since this has just been recently applied in our schools. Being an English-speaking country may have its drawbacks, like others criticizing our functional English to be nothing but shallow, basic and ambitious, but I’d like to dwell on its positive prospects, which makes us very open and globally acknowledged in the international scenario able to keep up even with the rest of the first-world countries. Thus living in a multicultural and multilingual society, children are expected to construct and effectively use the primary language that is often exposed to them. This was probably the basis of conducting the first language study which led to the K-12 curriculum. It is a wonder, however how linguists failed to acknowledge that language learning have different approaches that are proved to be more effective than translating one language to another. I have learned these when I was in college. Contrary to the popular belief that the best way to have students acquire a new language is by mere translation, there are actually multiple outcome-based methods that commendably introduces a new language to a learner. Here are a few of the approaches that we use in the introduction of English as a second language. I.
Grammar-Translation Method This method was first used for teaching and learning Latin language. It was the most popular and widely used method for language teaching before, but gained criticism in the 19 th century because of its failure to fulfill certain demands in language learning during this time. Grammar Translation is very basic and limited, it is basically translating words from first language to the new language. This reminds me of the “new� curriculum, wherein we focus on the
acquisition of the primary language and use that knowledge to understand and acquire the second language, which is English. They’re kind of similar, if you ask me. If it wasn’t able to fulfill the demands then in the 19 th century, I couldn’t imagine how it could possibly work now in the 21st. I don’t know how that’s going to work, honestly. II.
Direct Method This is a method that I like to use when teaching English, probably because it makes the
most sense, to me at least. The direct method was the outcome of the reaction against the grammar translation method. Instead of the traditional translation of written and oral text, this method focuses on the meanings of the words through action, demonstration, or real objects. This method focuses on directly thinking, doing discussion and conversation in second language (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). But according to most critics of this method, the success of this method depends greatly on the skills and personality of the teacher more than the method itself. III.
Structural Approach A structure is a pattern and a particular arrangement of words which to indicate
grammatical meanings. It may be a word, a phrase or a sentence (Gauridushi, 2011). The structural approach mainly employs the techniques of direct method but reading and writing is not being neglected. The structural approach says that the arrangement of the words in such a way as to form a suitable pattern and that pattern may make the meanings of the language clearer to us. Each language has its own structure and skeleton which gives this language a decent appearance, therefore making us understand how it should be organized and in doing so we make sense of its meaning. IV.
Oral Approach/ Situational Language Teaching
The oral approach is a method in which children to use whatever hearing they get from their surroundings. They also take help from the context to understand and use language. The target is to develop the skills in the individual so that he can communicate and function independently. This approach helps in the development of reading and writing skills (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). V.
Audiolingual Method This is also known as 'Army Method' because after the outbreak of World War II, the
army soldiers decided to be proficient in the languages of their enemies. So a new learning method of foreign languages was discovered which is known as audiolingual method. This method is based on a linguistic theory and behavioral psychology. The audiolingual method emphasis was not on the understanding of the words rather on acquisition of structures and patterns in common everyday dialogues (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). VI.
Total Physical Response According to Asher (1977), Total Physical Response is based on the premise that the
human brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth including the sign language of the deaf. We can see this process if we observe the language learning process of an infant. The communication between parents and the child consists of both verbal and physical aspects. When the child is not able to speak, at the time he/she is internalizing the language. This is the time when code breaking occurs. After this process the child becomes able to speak and reproduce language. In Total Physical Response (TPR), the teacher gives the students instructions and the students follow the instructions by using whole body responses. Students respond to the
commands of the teacher which require physical movement. TPR is most useful for beginners, this is also used for teaching students with dyslexia or related learning disabilities. VII.
Silent Way This method focuses on the learners to discover on their own rather than they
remember or memorize something. The learners are facilitated in learning by giving them some problem to solve which involves the materials that are needed to be learnt. This method of teaching was proposed by Caleb Gattegno. It is based on the view that teachers should be silent in the classroom as much as possible and have students speak and use the language instead. The most important aspect of this method is its elements that are used for language teaching i.e. colored charts and colored rods (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). VIII.
Communicative Language Teaching Approach Communicative language teaching focuses on developing the ability of communication
in learners in real life situations. It focuses on meaning rather than accuracy (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). This is a more developed teaching approach in language, as the whole point of learning a language is for better communication, making meaning out of words should be the first priority and not accuracy or fluency. IX.
Natural Approach This approach was influenced by Stephen Krashen's theory of language acquisition. The
natural approach focuses on communication as the major function of language. In this approach, language is considered as the vehicle or means of conveying a message and information. This
approach is based on the observation and understanding of acquiring first and second language in informal settings, like at home or when kids encounter other children. X.
Task-based Language Teaching Task- based language teaching is an approach that is based on the assumption that tasks
are the major unit of language learning. This approach is based on the problem solving view that the learners should be given some tasks to be solved. These tasks are related to the language structures that are required to be learnt. The learners interact and communicate with each other during solving these problems. In these way, they learn the language (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). The point of this is that there are numerous ways or approaches to have students learn the second language effectively, yet we chose to adapt the grammar-translation method by using the mother-tongue to teach English in schools. Translation is a basic technique. Translation is a way of understanding the meanings of the written and oral texts by converting the texts into the first or native language of the learners. Translation is a way of comparing and contrasting two languages i.e. first language and second language. Even now linguists recommend that translation should be avoided because it leads to such a mental process which hinders or stops learning. The learners should be encouraged to speak and even think in second language as much as possible. I wouldn’t claim to know so much about how mother-tongue is being used in schools as a method to introduce a second language, but this is what seems pretty likely to me. To better understand what really is happening in the real-life scenario in schools today, I’ve interviewed teachers and students from our local town just so we could get a picture of what it’s really like, and to also be able to understand the situation from their points of view.
One teacher said, she definitely disagrees with the implementation of mother-tongue as a medium of instruction in all subjects (except Filipino and English). She even states a scenario which really happened in her class, wherein her students found it difficult to shift from the third grade to the fourth since the medium of instruction changed then. She teaches in a public school, and what’s happening is that the abrupt change confuses students instead, and they start with the basics all over again. As much as we’d like to believe that language isn’t that important in learning history or science for example, it actually is. It makes all the difference - that is according to one teacher at least. Another one I’ve asked about this matter also says this is completely impractical. She says use of mother-tongue may be of good use in the introductory part for students, easing their way into the learning process, but she calls it “impractical” to use such medium in Science, Math, etc. According to her, we are so consumed with trying to be like other countries like Japan and Korea that learning English requires students to go to a special school, which doesn’t really help in any way at all. This is what she believes, and I quote “One of our advantages, compared to other Asian countries, if naa man gani (if we really have one), is our ability to speak and be fluent in the English language. It's a huge advantage man sad, for it makes it easier for us to adapt to other countries.” And it comes as a confusion how we found something bad about this advantage, that’s why they formulated the use of Mother Tongue. Both teachers’ perspectives and opinions to these matter are quite similar to my own. I’ve noticed that private schools have also adapted to these changes in the curriculum, but most of these schools, instead of using mother-tongue as a medium of instruction, introduced this as a separate subject instead. My cousins who go to a private Catholic school here in Cebu told me this, and I totally agree with this approach. Instead of altering the entire educational system in the first three years of grade school, why not create an additional friendly learning environment instead? This way our native
language is still preserved, as it is taught in schools, and being progressivists, we think positively of our nation’s future role and identity in the global arena. When the former president Benigno Aquino III promised to fix the Philippine basic education, we weren’t really expecting the rationalization of the medium of instruction. The President believes that we should become trilingual as a country and that we should “learn English well to connect to the world, learn Filipino to connect to your country, and retain your mother tongue to connect to your heritage.” I am a big supporter of change. I supported the idea of K-12 curriculum when it was still being debated and discussed in congress, arguing that we need this kind of change if we were to support the Education for All Movement. I had no idea then that K-12 comes with its multilingual approach, and that medium of instruction would change for the earliest years of education. It seemed ironic that we wanted to progress with the educational system by adding two more years in the secondary curriculum and changing the method of instruction in the first three years, by having mother tongue as the medium. Had we known, I and my colleagues would have argued against it. The idea wasn’t very popular when it was first introduced, we were under the impression that the point of the change in the curriculum was to increase the likelihood of Filipino graduates to have decent jobs in graduating high school, with them getting a clearer idea of what they’re getting into before enrolling for a course in college. This does complete make sense of course, not until we learn that the entire educational system is being altered, including major exams, so we could cater the use of the native language in the primary years. The challenge of learning the English language does not lie with the Filipino students’ inability to use their first language effectively, but in the method it was introduced in the earliest years as a means of instruction. Research suggests that the disparity between the word-level and text-level (comprehension) skills of non-native and native English learners can be traced to the difference in their oral language proficiency. Oral proficiency in English is not a strong predictor of English word-level skills
among non-native English speakers, but is strongly associated with comprehension and writing skills for these students. (Gunigundo, 2011) To be completely fair, the use of mother-tongue multilingual education has its perks too. The proponents of this method believe that teaching in a child’s first language or “mother tongue” in the early grades facilitates learning, because it is the language a child understands best. Furthermore they explain that this provides the best opportunity to learn to read and write, and helps develop critical thinking skills essential to learning, and that children may then use those skills to learn a second or third language introduced in higher grades. This would be true in remote and mountainous areas where children are very rarely exposed to another language besides their own. It would be advantageous on their end to learn the basics of history and science in the language that they’re accustomed to. However, the integration of English in the early years is just as important as basic Math. By adjusting to the local scenario in rural areas, we have tolerated the dislike and fear of using English instead of finding ways to have this introduced to the less fortunate in their early years. I am out of ideas of the pros of the mother-tongue based education, so I will hereon discuss the cons. The disadvantages of using the mother tongue as the method of instruction among primary school children is - they will be habitual to think and express their thoughts in mother tongue. After primary school, it will be difficult for them to adapt or switch over to another language as a medium of instruction because their ability of adopting languages decreases with age. According to one of our professors back in college, Dr. Inocian, “Amidst all the advantages in using the mother tongue, the only disadvantage of it is when the students are not using their native tongue as mother tongue, meaning they use other language, like English. This is the problem if in a specific locality there can be more languages used as mother tongue.” This is very true in most urban areas, even in our town. Children watch shows that use English as a language, and are therefore to learn the language even without adult
supervision. My nephew, for example, who is although half Filipino and half Mexican, is more comfortable using the English language to communicate with everyone, just because he watches Nick Jr all day. He understands our native language though, we don’t really talk to him in pure English. But what scares me is that when he finally goes to school, and in his primary years he encounters pure mothertongue based written examination, how is he supposed to make sense of every word when he learned the English alphabet and learned to count numbers in English? If we are to support all kinds of learners, isn’t it a bit unfair for other kids who are more exposed to another language besides their own native tongue? We couldn’t entirely blame parents too for educating children a different language at an early age, it is proven to be more effective for learners to acquire this at a young age. If the point of multilingual approach to education through mother-tongue based instruction is for us to never forget our roots and stay connected to our cultural heritage, should it not be taught as a separate subject instead? Just like English and Filipino, it shares the same importance as languages are concerned. The teaching of English language should not be bound to mere translation, just as the learning of the language should not be limited to the belief that one should master the native language first in order to be critical thinkers of the modern world. I try to be impartial to the mother-tongue based curriculum that is already implemented in schools today, and I do not really agree that it is entirely insignificant. Since based on research this has been proven effective, we’ll see how it goes a few years from now. If the future graduates could prove themselves to be better thinkers than we are, as a result of this shift in curriculum, hopefully they could improve the educational system for everyone too, someday.