EFFECTIVENESS OF MOTHER TONGUE-BASED INSTRUCTION

ON PUPILS‘ ACHIEVEMENT IN MATHEMATICS

Central Mindanao University

University Town, Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon, Philippines

(March 2014)

A MASTERS THESIS

MASTERS OF ARTS IN EDUCATION major in EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

JOVEM DECIPULO RICABLANCA

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of mother tongue based instruction

on the achievement of the Grade I pupils in Mathematics. Specifically, it aimed to describe the

profile of the pupils in terms of gender, socioeconomic status and ethnic origin; ascertain the

level of achievement in Mathematics when the pupils were exposed to mother tongue based and

English instruction; compare pupils‘ Mathematics achievement in the mother tongue-based

instruction and English based instruction using the results of their: pre-test, posttest and retention

test; and differentiate pupils‘ achievement in Mathematics between two groups when they are

categorized according to the profile variables: gender, socio economic status and ethnic origin.

A quasi-experimental research design was used involving two (2) intact groups of Grade

I pupils of San Nicolas Elementary School in School Year 2013-2014. The pupils who were

exposed to mother tongue-based instruction were assigned as the experimental group and the

pupils exposed to English instruction were assigned as the control group. The achievement test

for the mother tongue class was in mother tongue while the achievement test for the English

class was the same test but in English language. The reliability of the instrument was determined

by Cronbach‘s Alpha Reliability Coefficient. The mother tongue instrument had a Cronbach‘s

Alpha of 0.841 while the English instrument had a Cronbach‘s Alpha of 0.832. Both instruments

were highly reliable. The descriptive statistics, t-test for paired samples, and Analysis of

Covariance (ANCOVA) were used to analyze the data.

The pupils‘ achievement in the mother tongue-based instruction was significantly higher

than the achievement of those who were in the English Instruction both in the posttest and in the

retention test.

There was no significant difference in the achievement of the pupils when they were

grouped according to gender. Considering the socioeconomic status, there was no significant

difference among groups for those who were in the mother tongue-based instruction but a

significant difference exists for those in the English instruction. When the classes were grouped

according to ethnic origin, there was no significant difference in the achievement of the pupils in

the mother tongue class but a significant difference in the achievement was observed for pupils

in the English class.

It is, therefore, desirable for Grade I teachers to adopt the mother tongue instruction. It

makes learners learn better and easily.

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Many Filipino learners face various barriers in education and one of these barriers is that

our learners begin their schooling in a language where they do not comprehend. They do not

understand the language of education being used as a medium of instruction in the classroom

(DepEd, 2011). Many learners become discouraged and tend to drop out from school. Low

quality education often has disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and leads to school and

resource wastage as learners drop out, are pushed out or end up repeating grades (Alexander,

2000; Bowden, 2002). The learners should begin their education in a language they understand;

it will develop a strong foundation and a motivation to attend school. In addition, it will develop

their cognitive and reasoning skills enabling children to operate in different language starting in

the mother tongue with transition to Filipino and then English.

Test carried out in several developing countries revealed that many students had not

attained the competency levels required for their level of schooling. Thus, EFA reports that

―millions of children are leaving school without having acquired basic skills‖ (EFA Summary

Report 2010). The EFA Report on the quality of education notes an enormous gap between the

number of graduating from school and those among them are mastering the minimum level of

literacy.

The Department of Education Order No. 16 s. February 17, 2012, states that starting the

school year 2012-2013, the mother tongue-based multilingual education will be implemented in

all public schools specifically in Grade I, as part of the K to 12 Curriculum. The pupils‘ home

language will be used to teach all the learning areas for literacy and as a medium of instruction

inside the classroom.

The cognitive development and its effects in other academic areas, pupils taught to read

and write in their first language acquire competencies more quickly. Pupils who have learned to

read and write in their first language learn to speak, read, and write in a second language (L2)

and third language (L3) more quickly than those who are taught in a second language or third

language first; and in terms of cognitive development and its effects in other academic areas,

pupils taught to read and write in their first language acquire such competencies more quickly

(DepEd Order No. 74, s. 2009).

The use of mother tongue enables the young learners to immediately construct and

explain without fear of making mistakes, articulate their thoughts and add new concepts to that

which they already knew. In turn, the teachers can more accurately assess what has been learned

and identify the areas where they need help (Nolasco, 2010, Philippine Daily Inquirer). Mother

tongue-based education has a positive impact on educational and learning outcomes. The child‘s

home language can effectively be used as a language of instruction in the early years of

schooling as a bridge to learning. Appropriate language in education enables the teachers to

instruct on the language a child speaks most at home and understands well enough to learn

academic content through mother tongue.

Mother tongue instruction promotes inclusion in education and improves the quality of

education by building on the knowledge and experience of both learners and teachers. UNESCO

believes and supports findings of studies showing evidence that mother tongue instruction is a

key factor for literacy and learning.

DepEd noted empirical studies like, the Lingua Franca Project and Lubuagan First

Language Component Program, showing that learners learn to read more quickly in their first

language. The study revealed that pupils who have learned to read and write in their first

language learn faster to speak, read and write in a second language and third language than those

who are taught in a second or third language first. In terms of cognitive development and its

effects in other academic areas, pupils taught to read and write in their first language acquire

such competencies more quickly (DepED, 2009).

The challenges of every educator for the new curriculum being implemented by the

Department of Education contribute benefits to the learning of the pupils. It provides long-term

benefits like higher self-esteem, greater confidence and high aspirations for schooling and life

(UNESCO, 2006).

The mother tongue classrooms allow children to express themselves, contribute to

discussions and develop their intellects as conversations are carried out in a familiar language.

Instruction through a language that learners do not speak has been called ―submersion‖

(Skutnabb-Kangas 2000) because it is analogous to holding learners under water without

teaching them how to swim. Mother tongue is essential foundation for all learning and thus, it is

important that all children use their mother tongue when they enter the school for the first time.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to find out the achievement of the pupils in mother tongue-based

instruction in San Nicolas Elementary School.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the pupils in terms of:

a. gender,

b. socioeconomic status, and

c. ethnic origin?

2. What is the pupils‘ level of achievement in Mathematics when exposed to mother tongue-

based and English instruction?

3. Is there a significant difference of pupils‘ Mathematics achievement in the mother

tongue-based instruction and English-based instruction using the results of the:

a. posttest and

b. retention test?

4. Is there a significant difference between the mean score of Pupils‘ Achievement in

Mathematics in the mother tongue class and English class when they are grouped

according to the profile variables:

a. gender,

b. socio economic status, and

c. ethnic origin?

Objectives of the Study

The general aim of this study was to evaluate the achievement of pupils in mother tongue-

based instruction. Specifically it aimed to:

1. describe the profile of the pupils in terms of:

a. gender;

b. socioeconomic status; and

c. ethnic origin;

2. ascertain the level of achievement in Mathematics when the pupils were exposed to

mother tongue-based and English instruction;

3. compare pupils‘ Mathematics achievement in the mother tongue-based instruction and

English-based instruction using the results of the:

a. posttest and

b. retention test; and

4. differentiate Pupils‘ Achievement in Mathematics in the mother tongue class and English

class when they are grouped according to the profile variables:

a. gender,

b. socio economic status, and

c. ethnic origin.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study hoped to serve as a baseline data in the achievement of the

pupils in mother tongue-based instruction.

For the Grade I teachers, of their foremost roles in the implementation of mother tongue

based- multilingual education, this study is vital in that it may be able to improve the program

and provide appropriate instruction especially with respect to the implementation.

For the parents who play a big role in their child‘s development, their involvement serves

as reinforcement for the pupils to grow in all aspects specifically in letting their children know

how to read and write.

For the pupils, that they may able to have a lifelong learning using their home language

as a medium of instruction in the classroom and being proud of their heritage. They will not be

afraid to commit mistakes in articulating the word that they are going to speak.

Lastly, with the result of this study, the DepEd officials, curriculum makers and

researchers would be given a feedback with regards to the implementation of mother tongue

based- multilingual education as part of the K to12 Curriculum.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This research work focused on the effectiveness of mother tongue-based instruction

among the pupils‘ achievement in Mathematics. The study was conducted during the first

grading period for the school year 2013-2014 at San Nicolas Elementary School. Only two

heterogeneous classes out of the three sections of Grade I classes were involved in the study.

The topics were delimited to sixteen lessons adopted in the first quarter of the

Mathematics Grade I Teaching Guide of the Department of Education. The lessons used in

experimental and control group were parallel. The researcher himself translated the English

lesson plans used in the experimental class into mother tongue (Sinugbuanong Binisaya)

however the researcher used the quotation mark symbol (― ‖) to quote some of the terminologies

that cannot be translated due to the limited sources of the language. The lessons in the

experimental group (mother tongue as medium of instruction) included the following: Leksyon

1: Usa, Duha ug Tulo; Leksyon 2: Upat, Lima ug Unom; Leksyon 3: Pito, Walo ug Siyam;

Leksyon 4: Zero; Leksyon 5: Napulo; Leksyon 6: Onse hangtud Bayente; Leksyon 7: Bayante

Uno hangtud Singkuwenta; Leksyon 8: Singkuwenta i-uno hangtud Usa ka Gatos; Leksyon 9:

Mas Daghan ug Usa; Leksyon 10: Mas Dyutay ug Usa ; Leksyon 11: Mas Dyutay ug Mas

Daghan; Leksyon 12: Parehas ka Daghan; Leksyon 13: Pagsunod-sunod sa Pundok Gikan sa

Pinaka Gamay hangtud sa Pinaka Daghan o Pagsunod-sunod sa Pundok Gikan sa Pinaka Daghan

hangtud sa Pinaka Gamay; Leksyon 14: Pagtandi sa Numero nga naa sa 100 Gamit ang Simbolo

nga ≤, ≥ ug =; Leksyon 15: Laktaw-laktaw nga Pag-ihap sa 2 and Leksyon 16: Laktaw-laktaw

nga Pag-ihap sa tag 10.

The lessons in the control group (English as medium of instruction) included the

following: Lesson 1: One, Two and Three; Lesson 2: Four, Five and Six; Lesson 3:Seven, Eight

and Nine; Lesson 4: Zero; Lesson 5: Ten; Lesson 6: Eleven to Twenty; Lesson 7: Twenty One to

Fifty; Lesson 8: Fifty One to One Hundred; Lesson 9: One More Than; Lesson 10: One Less

Than; Lesson 11: Fewer Than and More Than; Lesson 12: As Many As; Lesson 13:Ordering

Sets from Least to Greatest or Greatest to Least Number of Elements; Lesson 14: Comparing

Numbers Through 100 Using Relation Symbols; Lesson 15: Skip Counting by 2‘s and Lesson

16: Skip Counting by 10‘s.

There were two intact classes that composed the experimental and control group. The

researcher himself handled the classes.

Conceptual Framework

The Cummins (1979) interdependence theory explains the positive transfer of literacy

skills from L1 to L2. He argues that the level of literacy competence in L2 that a child attains is

partially a function of the level of competence the child has in L1 at the time L2 teaching begins

intensively. Thus, if an education system submerges learners in L2 without first trying to further

develop the skill they already have in L1, the school risks impeding their competency in L2 for

years to come, while also limiting continued, autonomous development of their L1. This is

because the sustained use of a foreign language of instruction in schools negatively impacts the

way children, earn to think, thus inferring with their cognitive development (Wigglesworth &

Simpson, 2008) support the idea that a child‘s initial acquisition of language is vital to their

learning how to think. Therefore, when education system imposes a foreign language on

children, disregarding their initial contact with a language and pattern of processing new

information, inhibits their development of cognitive function.

Once the students have a basic literacy skills in the L1 and communicative skills in the

L2, they can begin reading and writing in the L2, efficiently transferring the literacy skills they

can have acquired in the familiar language. The pedagogical principles behind this positive

transfer of skills are Cummins‘ (1991, 1999) interdependence theory and the concept of common

underlying proficiency, whereby the knowledge of language, once oral L2 skills are developed,

and no re-learning is required. Consistent with these principles, it is possible for children

schooled only in the L2 to transfer their knowledge and skills to the L1, but the process is highly

inefficient as well as being unnecessarily difficult.

According to June Jordan (2009), ―You will never teach a child a new language by

scoring, ridiculing and forcibly erasing his first language.‖ At the beginning of education, mother

tongue instruction is very important not only to develop a strong educational foundation, but also

to strengthen the cognitive development of learners. Unless the mother tongue is used in

education, there is a big gap between the student‘s home and the school. By developing literacy

skills in the first language, mother tongue-based multilingual education helps strengthen the first

language and provides a smooth transition from L1 (first language) to L2 (national language) or

L3 (international language) to be used as a medium of instruction.

Mother tongue-based education has a positive impact on educational and learning

outcomes in most of the developing countries. A child‘s home language can effectively be used

as a language of instruction in the early years of their schooling as a bridge to learning. The

positive reinforcement decreases rates of repetition, failure and dropouts, and ―provides long-

term benefits like higher self-esteem, greater self-confidence and higher aspirations for schooling

and life‖ (UNESCO, 2006). L1 classrooms allow children to express themselves, contribute to

discussions and develop their intellects as conversations are carried out in a familiar language.

This is thought to lead to more satisfaction from the education system, therefore reducing

dropouts and because learners are able to keep up with what is going on or at least feel they can

ask questions where they do not understand, rates of failure and repetition decrease. In contrast,

learners in submersion classrooms are forced to sit silently or repeat mechanically, leading to

frustration and ultimately repetition, failure and dropout (Benson, 2004).

Mother tongue-based multilingual education program have been established in many

minority language communities around the world. Most teachers, principals and parents of

children in that program have found that students who begin learning in their home language: (a)

Have more confidence in themselves as learners; (b) Participate more actively in classroom

discussions; (c) Ask more questions; (d) Demonstrate a deeper understanding of the subjects; (e)

Learn to read more easily and understand what they read; (f) Learn to write more easily and

express themselves better in written form; and (g) Learn the school language – oral and written –

more easily and with greater comprehension.

Through a language a child is familiar with, the child is able to access the power of

education, to develop the self-esteem and pride and his potentials (Id21 Insights, 2006). Children

who read and write in the mother tongue before learning another language not only are more

successful second language learners but also excel more quickly than their peers who did not

become literate in their first language (UNESCO, 2003).

In the same manner, the implementation of mother tongue based- multilingual education

tend to be drastic in our educational innovations. Though it provides a positive effect towards the

academic performance and the pride of our heritage the use of mother tongue, but it advocates an

insufficient readiness, trainings and other problems that will be encountered by the concerned

authorities such as the implementers and the teachers.

Research Paradigm

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study made use of a quasi-experimental research design. These involved two groups,

the experimental group which used mother tongue as the medium of instruction in the classroom

and the control group which used English as a medium of instruction in the classroom in

teaching Mathematics. A pretest, posttest, and retention test were used to determine the

significant differences on pupils‘ achievement in Mathematics. The two classes were taught by

the researcher during the period in which they were assigned.

Locale of the Study

This study was conducted in the Department of Education, Division of Bukidnon at San

Nicolas Elementary School, San Nicolas, Don Carlos, Bukidnon. The school is 700 meters away

from the National Highway. The school is composed of 20 regular teachers of which two are

kindergarten teachers, three grade one teachers, four grade two teachers, three grade three

teachers, three grade four teachers, two grade five teachers, two grade six teachers and one

school principal who manage the school. At present, it has a population of 774 from Grade I to

VI including the Kindergarten. The school site is accessible in terms of land transportation.

Abreast with the needs of the time, the school was one of recipients of the DepEd

Computerization Program. The school is supported by the different internal and external

stakeholders like GPTA (General Parents Teachers Association), SGC (School Governing

Council), WOMENS, the ABK a Non-Government Education (NGO) whose legacy is to

minimize the Child labor, DAVCO (Davao Agri Ventures Corporation), PRIME (Philippines

Response to Indigenous Peoples, and Muslim Education) and etc.

Mother tongue as

medium of instruction

Pupils‘

Achievement in

Mathematics

English as

medium of instruction

Pretest

(Covariate)

Participants of the Study

The participants of the study were the Grade I pupils of San Nicolas Elementary School,

San Nicolas, Don Carlos, Bukidnon who were enrolled in the school year 2013-2014. There were

two intact classes for Grade I pupils that represented the experimental group and the control

group. The experimental group used mother tongue as a medium of instruction in teaching

Mathematics while the control group used English as a medium of instruction in teaching

Mathematics.

Table 1. Distribution of Participants of the Study

GROUPS MALE FEMALE TOTAL

Mother Tongue-

Based Instruction

15 16 31

English Medium of

Instruction

17 15 32

TOTAL 32 31 63

Instrumentation

The research instrument used in this study was the achievement test given to pupils in the

pretest, posttest, and in the retention test. The lessons used in the experimental and control group

were identical and parallel but they vary on the language of instruction used. The lesson plan was

adopted from the Department of Education Teachers Guide. The experimental group used

mother tongue as medium of instruction in teaching Mathematics while the control group used

English as medium of instruction in teaching Mathematics. The lesson plan in the experimental

group was written in mother tongue (Sinugbuanong Binisaya) instruction which was translated

by the researcher from the lesson plan being adopted from the Department of Education Teachers

Guide. However the researcher used the quotation mark symbol (― ‖) to quote some of the

terminologies that cannot be translated to mother tongue while the lesson plan in the control

group was written in English instruction in which it was the original text. The translated lesson

plan was content validated by an expert to secure the correctness and accuracy of the translation

and the material itself.

The lessons in the experimental group (mother tongue as medium of instruction) were

composed of the following: Leksyon 1: Usa, Duha ug Tulo; Leksyon 2: Upat, Lima ug Unom;

Leksyon 3: Pito, Walo ug Siyam; Leksyon 4: Zero; Leksyon 5: Napulo; Leksyon 6: Onse

hangtud Bayente; Leksyon 7: Bayante Uno hangtud Singkuwenta; Leksyon 8: Singkuwenta i-

uno hangtud Usa ka Gatos; Leksyon 9: Mas Daghan ug Usa; Leksyon 10: Mas Dyutay ug Usa ;

Leksyon 11: Mas Dyutay ug Mas Daghan; Leksyon 12: Parehas ka Daghan; Leksyon 13:

Pagsunod-sunod sa Pundok Gikan sa Pinaka Gamay hangtud sa Pinaka Daghan o Pagsunod-

sunod sa Pundok Gikan sa Pinaka Daghan hangtud sa Pinaka Gamay; Leksyon 14: Pagtandi sa

Numero nga naa sa 100 Gamit ang Simbolo nga ≤, ≥ ug =; Leksyon 15: Laktaw-laktaw nga Pag-

ihap sa 2 and Leksyon 16: Laktaw-laktaw nga Pag-ihap sa tag 10.

The lessons in the control group (English as medium of instruction) were composed of

the following: Lesson 1: One, Two and Three; Lesson 2: Four, Five and Six; Lesson 3:Seven,

Eight and Nine; Lesson 4: Zero; Lesson 5: Ten; Lesson 6: Eleven to Twenty; Lesson 7: Twenty

One to Fifty; Lesson 8: Fifty One to One Hundred; Lesson 9: One More Than; Lesson 10: One

Less Than; Lesson 11: Fewer Than and More Than; Lesson 12: As Many As; Lesson

13:Ordering Sets from Least to Greatest or Greatest to Least Number of Elements; Lesson 14:

Comparing Numbers Through 100 Using Relation Symbols and; Lesson 15: Skip Counting by

2‘s and Lesson 16: Skip Counting by 10‘s.

The achievement test questionnaire was a 25 item test. This questionnaire was made by

the Master Teachers of the Department of Education, Don Carlos I District, Don Carlos

Bukidnon. The achievement test for the mother tongue class was written in mother tongue while

for the English class the achievement test was in English. The same test was used during the

pretest, posttest and retention test. The coverage of the test was based on the topics of the lesson

plans.

The pupils‘ achievement in the experimental and control group of their pretest, posttest

and retention test was interpreted using the percentage equivalent in Grade I which was adopted

on their Report Card, in which 74% and below had the qualitative description of Beginning (B),

75%-79% had the qualitative description of Developing (D), 80%-84% had the qualitative

description of Approaching Proficiency (AP), 85%-89% had the qualitative description of

Proficient (P), and 90% and above had the qualitative description of Advanced (A).

The achievement test was validated by the Grade II pupils of San Nicolas Elementary

School, San Nicolas, Don Carlos, Bukidnon who had already done with the lessons when they

were still in Grade I.

Data Gathering Procedure

The primary sources of data were the pretest scores, posttest scores, and retention test

scores of the two groups. The researcher himself handled the two classes. This is to minimize the

effect of differing teachers.

The study was conducted during the first grading period. Throughout this period the two

groups of participants were taught the same lessons, exposed to the same activities, given the

same requirements, but were subjected to two different media of instruction.

Before the conduct of the study, a pretest was given to the two intact classes. The

experimental group answered the test questions which were written in mother tongue while the

control group answered the test questions which were written in English. The purpose of the

pretest was to compare their backgrounds on the topic and to see to it that the two groups were

comparable at the start of the study.

After the last topic was discussed, the same test was administered as posttest to both

groups to measure the extent of the learning of the pupils and for comparison of their scores.

After another week, a retention test which was also the same test as the pretest and

posttest was administered to the two groups measuring the retention of the pupils‘ learning.

The reliability of the instrument was established to Grade II pupils. The instrument was

subjected to item analysis. Items that needed revisions were revised. The mother tongue

achievement test had a Cronbach‘s Alpha of 0.841 while for the English class instruction had a

Cronbach‘s Alpha of 0.832. This implies that both instruments were highly reliable.

Statistical Treatment of Data

There were different statistical techniques used to analyze the data of this study.

The reliability of the instrument was determined by Cronbach‘s Alpha Coefficient.

Descriptive statistics was used to describe the profile of the grade one pupils in terms of gender,

socioeconomic status and ethnic origin as well as the level of achievement in Mathematics when

exposed to mother tongue based and English instruction.

The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare the posttest and retention

test results for the significance of their difference using the pretest as the covariate. The t-test for

paired samples was used to determine the significant difference between the mean scores of

Pupils‘ Achievement in Mathematics in the mother tongue class and in the English class when

they were grouped according to the profile of the variables: gender, socio economic status and

ethnic origin.

Hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Findings

The following significant findings were drawn from the study:

The profile of the pupils of the two groups in terms of gender was described as more or

less equally distributed. Most of the parents had a daily income of 300 pesos or below, and the

dominant ethnic origin is Cebuano.

The groups were comparable in that all the pupils had scores which fall to the same range

before the study. There were 31 or 100% of the pupils had scores of 74% and below labeled as

Beginning (B) for the mother tongue class and also in the English class had 32 or 100% got the

scores of 74% and below labeled as Beginning (B).

However in the posttest, it showed improvements in their achievement. There were 15 or

48.4% of the pupils had scores of 74% and below labeled as Beginning (B). There were 10

pupils or 32.3% who had scores of 75%-79% labeled as Approaching Proficiency (AP). There

were 4 pupils or 12.9% who got the scores of 80%-84% labeled as Developing (D). There was 1

pupil or 3.2% who belonged to the range of 85%-89% labeled as Proficient (P). Only 1 pupil or

3.2% reaches the range of 90% and above labeled as Advanced (A).

In the retention test, 22 or 70.9% of the pupils had scores of 74% and below and it

belonged to Beginning (B). There were 6 or 19.3% of the pupils had the scores of 80%-84%

labeled as Approaching Proficiency (AP). There were 3 or 9.7% of the pupils who had the

scores of 75%-79% with the qualitative description of Developing (D).

The pupils‘ level of achievement in Mathematics when exposed to English based

instruction, showed that in the posttest 26 pupils or 81.1% got scores of 74% and below

indicating Beginning (B). There were 4 pupils or 12.6% who got 80%-84% belonged to

Approaching Proficiency (AP). There were only 2 pupils or 6.3% got 75%-79% labeled as

Developing (D).

During the retention test, 30 or 93.7% got 74% and below indicating Beginning (B).

There were 2 or 6.3% of them who got 75%-79% which indicate Developing (D).

The pupils‘ achievements when exposed to mother tongue-based instruction had mean

scores of 73.03 in the posttest and 65.94 in the retention test, while the English based instruction

had mean scores of 53.00 in the posttest and 39.38 in the retention test. There was a significant

difference between the two instructions in pupils‘ Mathematics achievement with F=10.312 at

p=0.002 and F=25.067 at p=0.000 in the post and retention tests respectively. Pupils exposed to

mother tongue-based instruction had significantly higher Mathematics achievement compared to

those in the English based instruction.

The pretest in the mother tongue class with regards to groupings by gender showed that

the males had the mean of 33.75 and a standard deviation of 13.54 while the females had a mean

of 40.80 and a standard deviation of 8.97 with a t-value of -1.696 and a non-significant

Probability of .101. The posttest of males had a mean of 73.00 and a standard deviation of 11.17

while the females had a mean of 73.07 and a standard deviation of 9.62. The t-value was -.018

and the probability was .986. The retention test of the males had a mean of 63.25 and a standard

deviation of 11.52 while the females had the mean 68.80 and a standard deviation of 8.44. The t-

value was -1.521 and the Probability was .139.

The males in the pretest of the English class instruction had a mean of 23.29 with the

standard deviation of 9.19 whereas the females had the mean of 24.80 and the standard deviation

was 14.75 with t-value of -3.51 and a non-significant Probability of .728. The posttest of the

males had a mean of 52.94 and the standard deviation is 21.33 whereas the females had the mean

of 53.07 with the standard deviation of 18.11. It had a t-value of -.018 and the Probability was

.986. For the retention test, the males had a mean of 37.18 and the standard deviation was 16.42

whereas the females had the mean of 41.87 and the standard deviation was 20.11. The t-value

was -.726 and the Probability was.473. The females achievement was not significantly different

from the males achievement.

The pretest in the socioeconomic group for the mother tongue class instruction indicates

that the 300 pesos and below daily income had the mean of 36.55 with the standard deviation of

11.99 while for the 301 pesos and above daily income, the mean was 46.00 with the standard

deviation of 8.49. The t-value was -1.088 and the Probability was .286. In the posttest, the 300

pesos and below daily income had a mean of 73.66 with the standard deviation of 10.28. The 301

pesos and above daily income had the mean of 64.00 with the standard deviation of 5.66. It had a

t-value of 1.300 and the Probability was .204. In the retention test, the 300 pesos and below daily

income had the mean of 66.07 with the standard deviation of 10.72. The 301 pesos and above

daily income, the mean was 64.00 and a standard deviation was .00. The t-value was .269 and the

Probability was .790.

The pretest in the socioeconomic status in the English class instruction, from 300 and

below daily income it had the mean of 24.00 with the standard deviation of 10.64. The 301 and

above daily income had a mean of 24.00 with the standard deviation of 24.98. The t-value was

.000 and the Probability was 1.000. In the posttest, the mean of the 300 and below daily income

was 49.93 with the standard deviation of 17.88. The 301 and above daily income had the mean of

82.67 with the standard deviation of 2.31. The t-value was -3.124 and the Probability was .004*.

The mean of the retention test for those with the daily income of 300 and below was 36.28 with

standard deviation of 15.85. The 301 and above daily income had a mean of 69.33 with the

standard deviation of 8.33. The t-value was -3.524 and the Probability was .001*.

The pretest of Cebuano pupils in the mother tongue class had a mean of 35.60 with a

standard deviation of 12.39. The other ethnic origin namely Boholano, Ilongo, Manobo, Tala-

andig, and Waray had a mean of 40.00 with the standard deviation of 12.39, a t-value of .983 and

a Probability of .334. In the posttest, the mean of Cebuano pupils is 73.20 with the standard

deviation of 8.32. The other ethnic groups had a mean of 72.73 with a standard deviation of

13.60. It had a t-value of -.121 and .905 Probability. In the retention test, the Cebuanos had a

mean of 66.20 with the standard deviation of 10.58. The other ethnic groups had a mean of 65.45

with the standard deviation of 10.47 with a t-value of -.188 and .852 Probability.

The pretest for the English class, Cebuanos had a mean of 24.96 with a standard

deviation of 12.82. The other ethnic origin had a mean of 20.57 and a standard deviation of 7.81.

The t-value was -.856 with the Probability of .399. In the posttest, Cebuanos had a mean of

58.40 and the standard deviation was 17.96. The other ethnic origin had a mean of 33.71 and a

standard deviation was 11.51. It had a t-value of -3.422 with the Probability of .002*. For the

retention test, the Cebuanos had the mean of 43.84 with the standard deviation of 17.57. The

other ethnic origin had the mean of 23.43 with the standard deviation of 8.77. The t-value was -

2.947 with the Probability of .006*.

To sum up, the gender difference for both group was not significant in the achievement of

the pupils in Mathematics. The socioeconomic status was not significant in the mother tongue

class but in the English class the socioeconomic status was significant. The ethnic origin was not

significant in the mother tongue class while in the English class, the ethnic origin was

significant.

Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn based on the findings of the study:

The pupils in the mother tongue-based instruction and English instruction have more or

less equally distributed males and females. Most of the parents have a daily income of 300 pesos

or below, and the dominant ethnic group is Cebuano.

When the pupils are exposed to mother tongue-based instruction, their level of

achievement in the pretest, posttest and retention test improve more than the achievement of the

pupils in the English instruction. Though the scores obtained by the pupils in the mother tongue-

based instruction are not that high but still it outperforms the scores obtained by the pupils in the

English instruction.

There is a significant difference in the achievement of the pupils in mathematics when

taught using the mother tongue as medium of instruction compared to those pupils who are

taught in English as medium of instruction. The pupils in the mother tongue show significantly

higher achievement compared to those in the class with English as the medium of instruction.

The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in Mathematics achievement between

pupils exposed to mother tongue and English instruction is rejected.

There is no significant difference in Mathematics achievement when pupils are grouped

according to gender in either group. Grouping students according to socioeconomic status in the

mother tongue-based instruction shows no significant difference in the achievement of the pupils

but in the English instruction there is a significant difference in the Mathematics achievement of

the pupil in favor to those pupils whose parents have high income. Ethnic origin shows no

significant difference in the achievement of the pupils in the mother tongue class instruction.

However, in the English instruction ethnicity shows a significant difference in the achievement

of the pupils in Mathematics favorable to Cebuano heritage.

Recommendations

In this modern era of improving our educational system in the Philippines, the educators

are challenged to face the new curriculum implemented and mandated by the Department of

Education to secure the new trends, enhance and develop the curriculum locally for a better-

quality education.

There is a need for a diligently monitoring using mother tongue-based instruction as the

key in learning in securing appropriateness in the implementation of the curriculum.

Implementers are encourage to consistently examine and supervise the implementation to

address the problems and the curriculum itself.

It would be good practice for the curriculum implementers to enrich and enhance the

newly implemented curriculum. They may conduct additional trainings and seminars to the

teachers regarding the implementation of mother tongue as a medium of instruction in the

classroom.

It would be desirable if the Grade I teachers show willingness in adjusting themselves

and in adopting the mother tongue-based instruction as mandated in the Department of

Education. It makes every learner learns easily.

Researchers in the field may conduct a similar study to determine other related and

intervening factors towards the achievement of the pupils in Mathematics using mother tongue as

medium of instruction.

Table 2. Profiles of Grade I Pupils Who are Taught Mathematics Using Mother Tongue-

Based Instruction

PROFILE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Gender

Boys 15 48

Girls 16 52

TOTAL 31 100

Socioeconomic Status

300 pesos or below 29 94

301 pesos or above 2 6

TOTAL 31 100

Ethnic Origin

Cebuano 17 55

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

14 45

TOTAL 31 100

Table 3.Profile of Grade I Pupils Who are Taught Mathematics Using English Instruction

PROFILE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Gender

Boys 17 53

Girls 15 47

TOTAL

32 100

Socioeconomic Status

300 pesos or below 29 91

301 pesos or above 3 9

TOTAL

32 100

Ethnic Origin

Cebuano 20 63

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

12 37

TOTAL

32 100

Table 4. Pupils‘ Level of Achievement in Mathematics When Exposed to Mother

Tongue-Based Instruction

Mother Tongue

Based Instruction

Pretest Posttest Retention

test

Qualitative

Description

Range of

Achievement

N Percent

(%)

N Percent

(%)

N Perc

ent

(%)

74% and below 3

1

100 1

5

48.4 22 70.9 Beginning

75%-79% 0 0 4 12.9 3 9.7 Developing

80%-84% 0 0 1

0

32.3 6 19.3

Approaching

Proficiency

85%-89% 0 0 1 3.2 0 0 Proficient

90% and above 0 0 1 3.2 0 0 Advanced

Legend:

Percentage Equivalent Qualitative Description

74% and below Beginning (B)

75%-79% Developing (D)

80%-84% Approaching Proficiency (AP)

85%-89% Proficient (P)

90% and above Advanced (A)

Table 5. Pupils‘ Level of Achievement in Mathematics When Exposed to English

Instruction

English Instruction Pretest Posttest Retention

test

Qualitative

Description

Range of

Achievement

N Percent

(%)

N Percent

(%)

N Percent

(%)

74% and below 32 100% 26 81.1% 30 93.7% Beginning

75%-79% 0 0 2 6.3% 2 6.3% Developing

80%-84% 0 0 4 12.6% 0 0 Approaching

Proficiency

85%-89% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

90% and above 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Legend:

Percentage Equivalent Qualitative Description

74% and below Beginning (B)

75%-79% Developing (D)

80%-84% Approaching Proficiency (AP)

85%-89% Proficient (P)

90% and above Advanced (A)

Table 6. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of Posttest Mean Scores of Pupils Exposed

to Mother Tongue-Based Instruction and English Based Instruction

GROUP N Mean SD

Mother Tongue Based

Instruction

31 73.03 10.27

English Instruction 32 53.00 19.60

Source Type III Sum of

Squares

Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 8354.18a 2 4177.09 19.274 .000

Pretest (Covariate) 2035.43 1 2035.43 9.392 .003

GROUP 2234.96 1 2234.96 10.312 .002

Error 13003.53 60 216.73

Total 270272.00 63

Corrected Total 21357.71 62

Table 7. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of Retention Test Mean Scores of Pupils

Exposed to Mother Tongue-Based Instruction and English Based Instruction

GROUP N Mean SD

Mother Tongue-Based

Instruction

31 65.94 10.37

English Instruction 32 39.38 18.09

Source Type III Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 13651.83a 2 6825.91 37.811 .000

Pretest (Covariate) 2543.64 1 2543.64 14.090 .000

GROUP 4525.36 1 4525.32 25.067 .000

Error 10831.73 60 180.53

Total 197760.00 63

Corrected Total 24483.56 62

Table 8. Mathematics Achievement Differences of Pupils‘ in Mother Tongue Class When

Grouped According to Gender

Gender Mean Standard Deviation t-value Probability

Pretest

Male 33.75 13.54 -1.696 .101

Female 40.80 8.97

Posttest

Male 73.00 11.17 -.018 .986

Female 73.07 9.62

Retention

Male 63.25 11.52 -1.521 .139

Female 68.80 8.44

Table 9. Mathematics Achievement Differences of Pupils‘ in English Class When

Grouped According to Gender

Gender Mean Standard Deviation t-value Probability

Pretest

Male 23.29 9.19 -3.51 .728

Female 24.80 14.75

Posttest

Male 52.94 21.33 -.018 .986

Female 53.07 18.11

Retention

Male 37.18 16.42 -.726 .473

Female 41.87 20.11

Table 10. Mathematics Achievement Differences of Pupils‘ in Mother Tongue Class

When Grouped According to Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic Status Mean Standard Deviation t-value Probability

Pretest

300 and below 36.55 11.99 -1.088 .286

301 and above 46.00 8.49

Posttest

300 and below 73.66 10.28 1.300 .204

301 and above 64.00 5.66

Retention

300 and below 66.07 10.72 .269 .790

301 and above 64.00 .00

Table 11. Mathematics Achievement Differences of Pupils‘ in English Class When

Grouped According to Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic Status Mean Standard Deviation t-value Probability

Pretest

300 and below 24.00 10.64 .000 1.000

301 and above 24.00 24.98

Posttest

300 and below 49.93 17.88 -3.124 .004*

301 and above 82.67 2.31

Retention

300 and below 36.28 15.85 -3.524 .001*

301 and above 69.33 8.33

Table 12. Mathematics Achievement Differences of Pupils‘ in Mother Tongue Class

When Grouped According to Ethnic Origin

Ethnic Origin Mean Standard Deviation t-value Probability

Pretest

Cebuano 35.60 12.39 .983 .334

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

40.00 12.39

Posttest

Cebuano 73.20 8.32 -.121 .905

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

72.73 13.60

Retention

Cebuano 66.20 10.58 -.188 .852

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

65.45 10.47

Table 13. Mathematics Achievement Differences of Pupils‘ in English Class When

Grouped According to Ethnic Origin

Ethnic Origin Mean Standard Deviation t-value Probability

Pretest

Cebuano 24.96 12.82 -.856 .399

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

20.57 7.81

Posttest

Cebuano 58.40 17.96 -3.422 .002*

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

33.71 11.51

Retention

Cebuano 43.84 17.57 -2.947 .006*

Others: Boholano,

Ilongo, Manobo,

Tala-andig, &

Waray

23.43 8.77

REFERENCES

AGODINI, R., HARRIS, B., THOMAS, M., MURPHY, R., & GALLAGHER, L.2010.

Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings for

First and Second Graders (NCEE 2011-4001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation

and Regional Assistance.

AGPALZA, J. C. 2013. Teachers‘ Preparedness in Teaching Beginning Reading in the Mother

Tongue Under the K to 12 Curriculum, Central Mindanao University, Musuan,

Maramag, Bukidnon, Unpublished Masters‘ Thesis.

AKDEMIR, O. & SARITAS, T. 2003. Identifying Factors Affecting the Mathematics

Achievement of Students for Better Instructional Design, Turkey.

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.

ALEXANDER, R. 2000. Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary

Education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

ALTSCHUL, I., D. OYSERMAN, & D. BYBEE. 2006. ―Racial-Ethnic Identity in Mid

Adolescence: Content and Change as Predictors of Academic Achievement.‖ Child

Development 77 (5): 1155–1169.

AL-BALUSHY, Z. 1998.Using the Mother Tongue in the English Language Classroom

AQUINO, L. F. Y. 2012. The Effects of Bilingual Instructions on the Literacy Skills of Young

Learners, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines, Volume

4,Retrieved June 11, 2012, from http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2012/06/14/the- effects-

of-bilingual-instruction-on-the-literacy-skills-of-young-learners.

ARNOLD, C., BARLETT,K., GOWANI, S., & MERALI, R. 2006. Is Everybody Ready?

Readiness, Transition and Continuity: Reflections and Moving Forward. Background

Paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007.

ATWEH, B., MEANEY, T., MCMURCHY-PILKINGTON, C., NEYLAND, J., &

TRINICK, T. 2004. Social Justice and Sociocultural Perspectives in Mathematics

Education. In B. Perry, C. Diezmann, & G. Anthony (Eds.), Reviewof Mathematics

Education in Australasia 2000- 2003.

AUKERMAN, M. 2007. A Culpable CALP: Rethinking the Conversational/Academic

Language Proficiency Distinction in Early Literacy Instruction. The Reading

Teacher, 10.1598/RT.60.7.3.

AYDIN, BOLUKBASI, & POLAT, 2005. Niğde ili ―Ortaöğretim Kurumlarında Okuyan

Öğrencilerin Matematik Dersine Karşı Kalıplaşmış Tutumları‖, XIV. Ulusal Eğitim

Bilimleri Kongresi, (28-30 Eylül 2005), Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi.

BAJAN, E. A. 2005, Problem Solving and Number Exercise Combination in a Process

Standard- Design Instruction: Its Effect on Students‘ Achievement and Attitudes, Central

Mindanao University, Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon, Unpublished Masters‘ Thesis.

BALL, J. 2011. Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother

Tongue-Based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early Years, United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, &, Place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris

07 SP. University of Victoria.

BEATON, A.E., & DWYER, L.M. 2002. Separating School, Classroom and Student

Variances and Their Relationship to Socioeconomic Status. In D. F. Robitaille & A. E.

Beaton (Eds.), Secondary Analysis of the TIMSS data (pp.2 11-231). Boston, MA:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

BEATON, 2005. Sex Differences in Objective Test Performance. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 52, 213–219.

BENSON, C. 2002. Bilingual education in Africa: An exploration of encouraging connections

between language and girls' schooling. In Melin, Mia (ed) Education—A Way out of

Poverty? Research presentations at the Poverty Conference 2001. New Education

Division Documents No. 12. Stockholm: Sida, 79-95.

BENSON, C. 2004. The Importance of Mother Tongue-Based Schooling for Educational

Quality, Commissioned Study for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005, Stockholm

University.

BENSON, C. 2006. Girls, Educational Equity and Mother Tongue-based Teaching,

Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.

BOUCHEY, H. A & HARTER, S. 2005.Reflected Appraisals, Academic Perceptions, and

Math/Science Performance During Early Adolescence. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 97(4), 673-686.

BOWDEN, R. 2002. Young People, Education and Development. In: V. Desai and R. B.

Potter,eds. The Companion to Development Studies. London: Arnold, pp. 405- 409.

BUNTAT, Y., JABOR, M.K, KUNGU, K., & MACHTMES, K. 2011. The Influence of Age

and Gender on the Students‘ Achievement in Mathematics, International Conference on

Science and Humanity, IPEDR vol.5 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore.

BUTZKAMM, W. 2003. We Only Learn Language Once: The Role of the Mother

Tongue in EFL classrooms, Death of a Dogma, Language Learning Journal, 28, 29-39.

CABO, C. F. 2013. Writing Errors in English Among Freshman English Majors, Central

Mindanao University, Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon, Unpublished Masters‘ Thesis

CAMPBELL, P. B. 1995. Redefining the "Girl Problem" in Mathematics. In W. G.

Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adjian (Eds.), New Directions for Equity in Mathematics

Education (pp. 225-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CHAUDRON, C. 2004. Second Language Classrooms. Research on Teaching and

Learning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Journal of Academic Research

in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 2, No. 7.

CHAVOUS, T., D. HILKENE, K. SCHMEELK, C. H. CALDWELL, L. KOHN-WOOD,

& M. A. ZIMMERMAN. 2003. Racial Identity and Academic Attainment Among

African American Adolescents. Child Development 74(4): 1076–1090.

CHAVOUS, T. & COLLEAGUES, 2003. Ethnic Identity and Academic Achievement.

Retrieved June 1, 2012from http://www.education.com/reference/article/ethnic-

identity-and- academic-achievement/.

CROOKS, T. & FLOCKTON, L. 2002. Mathematics Assessment Results 2001: National

Education Monitoring Report 23. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.

CUMMINS, J. 1979. Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of

Bilingual Children. Review of Educational Research. Retrieved from:

http://rer.sagepub. com/content /49/2/222 full.pdf+html.

CUMMINS, J. 1991. Interdependence of First- and Second-Language Proficiency in

Bilingual Children. In Bialystok, E. (ed), Language Processing in Bilingual

Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70-89.

CUMMINS, J. 1999. Alternative Paradigms in Bilingual Education Research: Does Theory Have

a Place? Educational Researcher 28, 26-32.

DAKAR FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION. 2000. Retrieved from: http:// unesdoc. unesco. org/

images /0012/ 001211/ 121147e.pdf.

DEMIE, F. 2001. Ethnic and Gender Differences in Educational Achievement and

Implications for School Improvement Strategies. Educational Research, 43(1), 91- 106.

Department of Education. 2009. Order No. 74. Institutionalization of the Mother Tongue-based

Multilingual Education as a Fundamental Educational Policy and Program in the

Department. July 14, 2009. Manila, Philippines.

DepEd, 2011. Mother Tongue, Retrieved from www.depedro7.com.ph/uploaded

Files/file/newsletter/72811/MotherTongue.pdf.

Department of Education. 2012. Order No. 16. Guidelines on the Implementation of Mother

Tongue Based-Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). February 17, 2012. Manila,

Philippines.

DING, C., S: SONG, K. & RICHARDSON, L.I. 2007. Do Mathematical Gender Differences

Continue? Educational Study, 279 – 295.

DUMATOG, R.C. & DEKKER D. E. 2003. First Language Education in Lubuagan,

Northern Philippines, SIL International and Department of Education, Philippines,

Retrieved September 1, 2012, from http:// www. mlephilippines.org.

DUTCHER, 1994 in TUCKER. 1999. The Effects of Bilingual Instructions on the

Literacy Skills of Young Learners, University of the Philippines, Quezon

City,Philippines, Volume 4, Retrieved June 11, 2012, from

http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2012/06/14/the- effects-of-bilingual-instruction-on- the-

literacy-skills-of-young-learners.

EFA SUMMARY REPORT, 2010. Reaching the Marginalized. London: UNESCO.

English Bisaya Translations and Dictionary, www.

tanslate.sandayon.com/translation?query=stick&from=English&to=Cebuano&src =form.

FENNEMA, 2003. A Longitudinal Study of Learning to Use Children's Thinking in

Mathematics Instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 403-

434.

GACHECHE, K. 2010. Challenges in Implementing a Mother Tongue-Based Language in

Education Policy: Policy and Practice in Kenya, POLIS Journal Vol.4.

GARDEN, R. A. 1997. Mathematics and Science Performance in Middle Primary

School: Results from New Zealand‘s Participation in the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study. Wellington, NZ: Research and International

Section, Ministry of Education.

GRAY, M. 1996. Gender and Mathematics: Mythology and Misogyny. In G. Hanna (Ed.),

Towards Gender Equity in Mathematics Education: An ICMI study (pp. 27- 38).

Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

GROOTENBOER, P. & HEMMINGS, B. 2007. Mathematics Performance and the Role

Played by Affective and Background Factors, Charles Sturt University, Mathematical

Research Journal Vol. 19, No. 3, 3–20.

GUTIEREZ, 2004. As cited by Cabo, 2013. Writing Errors in English Among Freshman

English Majors, Central Mindanao University, Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon,

Unpublished Masters‘ Thesis.

HARE, M. 1999. Revealing What Urban Early Childhood Teachers Think About Mathematics

and How They Teach It: Implications For Practice, University Of North Texas,

December, s.11.

HASSANZADEH, N. & NESA, 2011, The Effect of Awareness and Explicit Knowledge of

Mother Tongue Grammar on the Learning of Foreign Language Grammar, Department of

ELT, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University.

HEZAVEH, M. M. & KIAMANESH A. R., 2003. Influential Factors Causing the Gender

Differences in Mathematics‘ Achievement Scores Among Iranian Eight Graders Based

on TIMSS 2003 Data, Teacher Training University, Ministry of Education, Tehran.

HOVENS, M. 2002. Bilingual education in West Africa: Does it Work? International Journal of

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.

HULL, J. 1990. Socioeconomic Status and Native Education. Canadian Journal of Native

Education, 17, 1-14.

ID21 INSIGHTS, 2006. Mother Tongue First: Children‘s Rights to Learn in Their Own

Languages. Vol. 5.

IKHSAN, I. 2009. English in the Teaching of Mathematics and Science Subjects (ETeMS)

Policy. Implications for the Performance of Malaysian Secondary Schools in

Mathematics and Science Subjects. European J. Operational Res., 2: 429-444.

INTERNTIONAL READING ASSOCIATION, 2001. Enhancing Learning of Children from

Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother Tongue-Based Bilingual or Multilingual

Education in the Early Years, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization, &, Place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP. University of Victoria.

ISRAEL, G. D., BEAULIEU, L.J., & HARTLESS, G. 2001. The Influence of Family and

Community Social Capital on Educational Achievement. Rural Sociology, 66 (1), 43-68.

JANSON, S. 1996. The Contribution of Large- Scale Assessment Program to Research on

Gender Differences. Educational Research and Evaluation.

JEYNES, W. H. 2002. Examining the Effects of Parental Absence on the Academic

Achievement of Adolescents: The Challenge of Controlling for Family Income. Journal

of Family and Economic Issues.

JORDAN, J. 2009. Teaching For Joy and Justice, Uncovering the legacy of language and

powerKosonen, Kimmo, SIL International and Payap University, Chiang Mai,

Thailand, First language-based multilingual education can help those excluded by

language (Plenary presentation at 12th

UNESCO-APEID International 24026 March

2009, Bangkok, Thailand).

JUSOFF, K., AZIZ, M.A., & NOR, F.M. 2011. Should English for Teaching Mathematics and

Science (ETeMS) in Malaysia be Abolished? Language Academy, University

Technology Malaysia, 81300 Johor Bharu Johor, Malaysia, Faculty of Forestry,

University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, World Applied

Sciences Journal 12 (Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society): 36-40, 2011

ISSN 1818-4952 © IDOSI Publications.

KADEL, P. 2010, Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education, LDC Nepal.

KATIELANE, 2005. As cited by CABO, C. F. 2013, Writing Errors in English Among

Freshman English Majors, Central Mindanao University, Musuan, Maramag,

Bukidnon, Unpublished Maters‘ Thesis.

KELLAGHAN, T., & MADAUS, G.F. 2002. Teachers' Sources and Uses of Assessment

Information. In D. F. Robitaille & A. E. Beaton (Eds.), Secondary Analysis of the TIMSS

Data. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

KIFER, E.W. 2002. Students' Attitudes and Perceptions. In D. F. Robitaille & A. E. Beaton

(Eds.), Secondary Analysis of the TIMSS Data. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

KILPATRICK, SWAFFORD, & FINDELL. 2001.National Research Council. Adding It Up:

Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,

2001.

KIOKO, MUTIGA, MUTHWII, SCHROEDER, INYEGA, & TRUDELL, 2008. As cited

by BALL, J. 2011. Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language

Backgrounds: Mother Tongue-Based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early

Years, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, &, Place de

Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP. University of Victoria.

KOSONEN, K. 2009. Language-in-Education Policies in Southeast Asia: An Overview. In:

Mj.Redmond, ed. Mother Tongue as Bridge Language of Instruction: Policies and

Experiences in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education

Organization (SEAMEO) Secretariat, pp. 22-43.

KRASHEN, S. 2003. Condemned Without a Trial: Bogus Arguments Against Bilingual

Education. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

KUPER, W. 2003. The Necessity of Introducing Mother Tongues in Education Systems of

Developing Countries. In: A. Ouane, ed. Towards a Multilingual Culture of Education

Retrieved from: http://www. unesco.org/ education/uie/ publications/uiestud41.shtml.pp.

89-102.

LADSON-BILLINGS, G. 1997. It doesn‘t Add Up: African American Students‘ Mathematics

Achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 697-708.

LIN, A. M. Y. & MARTIN, P.W. 2005. From a Critical Deconstruction Paradigm to a Critical

Construction Paradigm: An Introduction to Decolonization, Globalization and Language

in Education Policy and Practice. In: A.M. Y. Lin and P. W. Martin, eds.

Decolonization,: Language-in-Education Policy and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters Ltd, pp. 1-19.

LINDHOLM, K. J., & BORSATO, G. 2006. Academic Achievement Educating English

Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence (pp. 176-222). Washington, DC:

Center for Applied Linguistics.

LOPEZ, J.B. 2011. Development of Mother Tongue-based Early Literacy Assessment Tools for

Iloko Children, Department of Education, Region I, Ilocos Norte.

MALIPOT, I. H. 2011. DepEd Issues Rules on Funds for Mother Tongue-Based Education,

Retrieved June 11, 2012, from http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/343030/deped- issues-

rules-funds-mother- tongue based-education.

MALONE, S. 2007. Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education: Implications for

Education Policy, SIL International, Presented at the Seminar on Education Policy

and the right to Education: Towards More Equitable Outcomes for South Asia‘s

Children Katmandu.

MAY, S. 2003. Some Factors Underlying High and Low Achievement in PISA 2000. Paper

Presented at the NZARE/AARE Conference, University of Auckland, NZ.

MAYER, S. 2002. The Influence of Parental Income on Children‘s Outcomes. Retrieved

January 22, 2013 from http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-

ourwork/publications-resources/research/influence-parental-income/influence-of-

parental-income.pdf.

Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education in the Philippine Schools. 2012. Retrieved June

11, 2012, from http:// www. braincontour.com/2012/03/08/mother-tongue-based-multi-

lingual-education-in - philippines-school/.

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. Edu Source Data News No. 49. October. Johannesburg: The Education

Foundation Trust.

MUAÑA, M. S. 2013, Collaborative Learning Strategy in English and the Students

Achievement and Attitude, Central Mindanao University, Musuan, Maramag,

Bukidnon, Unpublished Masters‘ Thesis.

MULLIS, I.V.S. et al., 2000. Sex Differences in Objective Test Performance. British Journal

of Educational Psychology.

MULLIS, I. V. S., MARTIN, M. O., FIERROS, E. G., GOLDBERG, A. L., & STEMLER, S.

E. 2000. Gender differences in achievement: IEA's Third International Mathematics

and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

MULLIS et al., 2004, TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA‘s

Trend in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades.

Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

NAMBATAC, F. B. 2012, Conceptual Understanding on Systems of Linear Equations Among

High School Students in Don Carlos National High School, Central Mindanao

University, Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon, Unpublished Masters‘ Thesis.

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, 2009. Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, October 2010. Achievement Effects of Four

Early Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings for First and Second Graders,

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

NCTM, 1991. Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics, Reston, VA: Author.

NOLASCO, R. M. 2009.Why Filipino children learn better while using their Mother

Tongue: A Primer on Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Education (MLE) & other

issues on language learning in the Philippines. UP Diliman. Retrieved from

http://www.mlephilippines.org.

NOLASCO, R. M. 2010, Mother Tongue based Multilingual Education, Philippine Daily

Inquirer, Retrieved June 11, 2012, from http:// www.

Inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100910-291594/Why-childre learn- better-

while-using-mother-tongue.

OAKES, 2000. Opportunities, Achievement, and Choice: Women and Minority Students in

Science and Mathematics. Review of Research in Education 16,153-222.

OGUNSHOLA, FEMI , & ADEWALE, A. M.2012. The Effects of Parental Socio-

Economic Status on Academic Performance of Students in Selected Schools in Edu

Lga of Kwara State Nigeria.

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.

PAPANASTASIOU, C. 2002. Effects of Background and School Factors on the Mathematics

Achievement, Educational Research and Evaluation, 8 (1), p.55-70.

PEARD, R. 2002. Socioeconomic Background and Pupil Achievement in Mathematics. In D.

Edge & B. H. Yeap (Eds.), Mathematics education for a knowledge- based era

(Proceedings of the 2nd East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education and

9th

Southeast Asian Conference on Mathematics Education, Singapore, Vol. 2, pp. 21-

27). Singapore: National Institute of Education.

PINNOCK, H. 2009. Language and Education: The Missing Link – How the Language used in

Schools Threatens the Achievement of Education for All. London: CFBT Education

Trust/Save the Children Alliance.

PISA, 2000. Survey of Students Reading, Mathematical and Scientific Literacy Skills.

Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

PISA, 2003. Learning for Tomorrow‘s World, First Results from PISA, Program for

International Student Assessment, http://www.oecd.org /education/school/

programmeforinternational studentassessmentpisa/34002216.pdf.

RICHES, C., & GENESEE, F. 2006. Literacy: Cross Linguistic and Cross Modal Issues. In F.

Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating

English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence (pp. 64-108).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ROTHMAN, S. & MCMILLAN, J. 2003. Influences on Achievement in Literacy and

Numeracy. LSAY Research Report Number 36. Melbourne: Australian

Council for Educational Research.

ROTHMAN, S., & MCMILLAN, J. 2004. Sign Posts to Improved Test Scores in

Literacy and Numeracy. EQ Australia, 1, 24-26.

SAVILLE & TROIKE, 2000. Introducing Second Language Acquisition, Vera Regan,

University College Dublin.

SEMALI, L. M. 2009. Indigenous Pedagogies and Languages for Peace and Development. In: B.

Brock-Utne and G. Garbo, eds. Language and Power: The Implications of Language for

Peace and Development. Dar-es-Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers, pp.196-207.

SILVIA, 2002. As cited by Cabo, 2013. Writing Errors in English Among Freshman

English Majors, Central Mindanao University, Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon,

Unpublished Masters‘ Thesis.

SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education—or Worldwide

Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

SPRIGLER & ALSUP, 2003. An Analysis of Gender and the Mathematical Reasoning Ability

Sub-Skill of Analysis-Synthesis. Education. Vol. 123 no.4.

STRAND, S. 2010. ‗Do Some Schools Narrow the Gap? Differential School Effectiveness

by Ethnicity, Gender, Poverty and Prior Attainment‘, School Effectiveness and

School Improvement, Vol. 21, No.3, 289–314.

SUMMER INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS (SIL). 2006. Multilingual Education. Texas: SIL

International.

TATE, W. F., & D‘AMBROSIO, B. S. 1997. Equity, Mathematics Reform, and Research.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 650-651.

THOMAS, W. & COLLIER, V. 1997. School Effectiveness for Language Minority

Students, NCBE Resource Collection Series, No. 9, December 1997, USA:

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, George Mason University.

TRUDELL, B. 2005. Language Choice, Education and Community Identity‖. International

Journal of Educational Development 25.3 (2005): 237-251.

TULOG, N.P. 2004. Communication Strategies in English of the Primary Pupils of

Bukidnon, Central Mindanao University, Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon, Unpublished

Masters‘ Thesis.

UNESCO, 2000. Education for All. Status and Trends 2000. Assessing Learning Achievement,

International Consultative Forum on Education for All. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved

March, 2013 from: http:// unesdoc. unesco.org /images/0011/001198/ 119823e. pdf.

UNESCO, 2008. Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother

Tongue-Based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early Years, United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, &, Place de Fontenoy,

75352 Paris 07 SP. University of Victoria.

UNESCO, 2005. Advocacy Brief on Mother Tongue-based Teaching and Education for Girls.

Bangkok: UNESCO.

UNESCO, 2006. Challenges of Implementing Free Primary Education in Kenya: Available

from: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001516/151654eo.pdf.

UNESCO, 2007. Advocacy Kit for Promoting Multilingual Education: Including the

Excluded,http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/110/Booklet%201%20%

20Overview.pdf.

UNESCO BANGKOK, 2005. Advocacy Brief on Mother Tongue-Based Teaching and

Education for Girls. Bangkok.

WALKER, M. & CHAMBERLAIN, M. 1999. A Brief Overview of the Third

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Including the Conceptual

Framework for the Study, Sampling Procedures, and a Summary of Key Results

for New Zealand. The Research Bulletin, 10(October), 41-55.

WEBLEY, K. et al,. 2006, ―Mother Tongue First: Children's Right to Learn in their Own

Languages‖, Id21Insights Education#5, September 2006, Brighton: id21, Available at:

http://www.id21.org/insights/insights-ed05/index.html.

Why Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education in the Philippines? Retrieved June 11,

2012, from http://school-principal.blogspot.com/2011/01/multilingual-

education.html.

WIGGLESWORTH, G. & SIMPSON, J. 2008. The Language Learning Environment of

Preschool Children in Indigenous Communities. In: S. May, ed. Critical

Multiculturalism: Rethinking Multicultural and Antiracist Education. London:

Falmer Press, pp. 13-29.

WILKINSON, R. & PICKETT, K. 2009. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost

Always Do Better. London: Allen Lane.

WOLFF , H. & EKKEHARD. 2000. Pre-school Child Multilingualism and Its Educational

Implications in the African Context. Cape Town: PRAESA.

YOUNG, C. 2009. Good Practices in Mother Tongue-First Multilingual Education. In:

M.Redmond, ed. Mother Tongue as Bridge Language of Instruction: Policies and

Experiences in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: The Southeast Asian Ministers of

Education Organization (SEAMEO) Secretariat, pp. 120-135.