21 FEB 2023

DIRECTION
1. Read the article below.
2. Write a 3- paragraph commentary/ response on the article. Align your thoughts and insights
to the parlance of teaching and assessment of grammar.
3. Your commentary/ response will be graded based on:

• Quality of Thoughts
• Mechanics in Writing
• Topic Context and Relevance.

4. Write your commentary/ response in a yellow pad paper. Deadline of submission is

Thursday, February 23, 2023.

____________________________________________________________________
English ‘pa more,’ the ‘betterer’?
By: Ricardo Ma. Duran Nolasco - @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer
December 04, 2021

Two things stand out about language in all three international learning assessments in which the
Philippines took part. First, our country is exceptional in having English as language of instruction
(LOI) that is not our home language. We are doing the opposite of what successful educational
systems are doing. Second, our country has the distinction of placing last or close to last in subject
outcomes.

Data from the 2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study show that speaking
English at home may actually be disadvantageous to Filipino learners. Filipino Grade 4 students
who do not speak English at home scored significantly higher than English speakers in TIMSS. The
figures speak for themselves: 337 vs. 253 in math, 294 vs. 196 in science, all favoring non-English
speakers.

This puzzling phenomenon also surfaced in the 2008 TIMSS in advanced mathematics. Our science
high schools participated in this test where we landed last. Again, those who did not speak English
at home performed significantly better than those who did. Among Philippine Science High School
students, those who “never” spoke English at home scored 567 compared to 514 scored by
English speakers. In city science high schools, non-English speakers got a score of 484 compared
to 390 of their English-speaking peers.
Of course, there are other factors that impact learning, but the issue of language can never be
underestimated. Lawmakers changed our policy in 2013 to mother tongue-based multilingual
education or L1-based MLE. The law mandates the learners’ first language (L1) or strongest
language as primary LOI across all elementary subjects. In high school, the second languages (L2s),
namely English and additionally Filipino for non-Tagalogs, become primary LOI. Meanwhile, the
L1 becomes an auxiliary medium.

Immense benefits accrue from an L1 plus L2 no-exit program. It ensures that learners will have
sufficient time to develop their cognitive academic language proficiency in the L1 across all
subjects. Elementary learners are also primed in English and Filipino to prepare them for the shift
to L2 in secondary school. When this happens, acquired skills and knowledge in the L1 can be
transferred to the L2. Research shows that typically L2 learning requires a minimum of 5-7 years
before proficiency is high enough for learners to engage with new content in L2.

Unfortunately, the current Department of Education (DepEd) leaders inherited a weak,

subtractive, short exit program from their predecessors. Here, L1 use in class is banned after
Grade 3. International and local studies have cautioned us that an abrupt shift to L2 will hurt
learning. This short-exit scheme is under review and will take a lot of undoing.

The current language program is one where teachers can hardly cover 50 percent of the mish-
mash curriculum. This pales in comparison to a strong, integrated, multilingual plan in which
specific learning goals for the L1, Filipino, and English subjects cohere at every grade level all the
way up to high school. Its focus is on L1 and L2 literacy, not grammar. Once implemented, it will
help solve the perennial problem of curriculum congestion.

Teachers can only teach what they know. An overdue program of relearning for in-service
teachers and a rethinking of pre-service teacher education are underway. The DepEd cannot
accomplish these tasks without the assistance of higher education partners like Philippine Normal
University and other agents of change in government, in the private sector, and in local
communities. It will require time for the L1-based MLE’s revolutionary philosophy and
methodology to be embraced by education stakeholders.

A shaping paper is essential to remove the present confusion about our language-in-education
policy. It should provide guidance to educators and school leaders on major aspects of the
delivery of language education, from planning, to materials production, to instruction, to teacher
preparation, and to assessment. A shaping paper based on something else simply will not do.