CONTENT AREA EFFECTIVENESS: ENGLISH VS FILIPINO MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.15141529Keywords:
Linguistics, Bilingualism, Strategies, Mathematics, Content AreaAbstract
The rate of students who get low grades in the content areas is alarming, particularly in the subjects of Sciences and Mathematics. Among the different factors affecting level of achievements as considered by several studies, is the Language factor. The teaching of subjects in the content area in Philippine schools uses English as a Second Language (ESL), wherein a certain mastery of the English language has to preceed, to understanding more of the subject. It is of great importance for teachers to evaluate the methods and techniques used in the process of teaching their subjects in order to raise level of performances of the students. This mini research aims to see the result of an evaluation of a classroom instruction while using monolingual instruction in ESL, or L2 that is English instruction, as compared with the use of bilingual instruction, in this case Filipino (the native language in the Philippines) and English combination. It is the hope of the researcher that the information gathered from this endeavor shall provide an insight for language educators and mathematics teachers to join forces in developing students’ linguistic, verbal, and logical-mathematical intelligences.
References
Alejandro, Rufino. (1968). “Pilipino as medium of instruction”. The Teacher’s Journal. Vol. XXVI, No. 3. July-Sept.
Borbon, Sr. Veronica Xavier L. SPC. The comparative effectiveness of Filipino and English as media of instruction in developing science enquiry skills. Unpublished dissertation. University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
Cuevas, Gilbert. (1990). Increasing the achievement and participation of language university students in Math education. In Teaching and Learning Math in 1990. 1990 yearbook. Thomas and Leoney and Christian Hinch.
Cummins, Jim (1984). Bilingualism in education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. England: Multilingual Mattered Limited.
Cummins and Swain M. (1982). Bilingualism in education: aspects of theory research and practice. Longham, London.
Diaz, Rico, Lynne T and Cathryn Z. Weed (1995). The cross cultural language and academic development handbook. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Duran, Luisa. (1994). toward a better understanding of code switching and interlanguage in bilingualism: Implications for bilingual instruction. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, V14 pp.69-88.
Gabriel, Josefina D. (2002). Comprehensible Input strategies and pedagogical moves using Filipino and English as Medium of instruction in secondary Mathematics. Ph. D dissertation, University of the Philippines.
Krashen, Stephen D. (1980). The input hypothesis. In James E. Atlatis (ed) Current Issues in Bilingual Education. Georgetown University. Round Table on Language and Linguistics.
Lópeza, Francesca, Martin Scanlana & Brenda K. Gormana (1995). Language Modeling and Reading Achievement: Variations across Different Types of Language Instruction Programs pages 1-29 Published online: 20 Nov 2014.
Martin, Michelle (2010). What is the effect of speech bubbles on structured accuracy when writing stories compared with story writing in text boxes? The University of York, Teaching young learners USA.
Usiskin, Zalman. (1996). “Mathematics as a language in communication” in Mathematics,K-12 and Beyond. Edited by Portia C. Elliot, pp. 231-243. Reston Va. Nat’l Council of teachers of Mathematics.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.