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 Cronbachs Alpha Reliability Coefficient. The mother tongue instrument had a Cronbachs
Alpha of 0.841 while the English instrument had a Cronbachs 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 childs
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 childs 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 2s and Lesson
16: Skip Counting by 10s.
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 childs 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 students 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 childs 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

Mother tongue as
medium of instruction

Pupils
Achievement in
Mathematics

English as
medium of instruction

Pretest
(Covariate)
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.
 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- 15 16 31
Based Instruction

English Medium of 17 15 32
Instruction
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
2s and Lesson 16: Skip Counting by 10s.
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 Cronbachs Alpha of 0.841 while for the English class instruction had a
Cronbachs 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 Cronbachs 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, 14 45
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray
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
32 100
TOTAL
Socioeconomic Status
300 pesos or below 29 91
301 pesos or above 3 9
32 100
TOTAL
Ethnic Origin
Cebuano 20 63
Others: Boholano, 12 37
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray
32 100
TOTAL

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

Tongue-Based Instruction

Mother Tongue Pretest Posttest Retention Qualitative

Based Instruction test Description
Range of N Percent N Percent N Perc
Achievement (%) (%) ent
(%)
74% and below 3 100 1 48.4 22 70.9 Beginning
1 5
75%-79% 0 0 4 12.9 3 9.7 Developing
80%-84% 0 0 1 32.3 6 19.3 Approaching
0 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 Qualitative

test Description
Range of N Percent N Percent N Percent
Achievement (%) (%) (%)
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 31 73.03 10.27
Instruction
English Instruction 32 53.00 19.60

Source Type III Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
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 31 65.94 10.37
Instruction
English Instruction 32 39.38 18.09

Source Type III Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
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, 40.00 12.39
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray
Posttest
Cebuano 73.20 8.32 -.121 .905
Others: Boholano, 72.73 13.60
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray
Retention
Cebuano 66.20 10.58 -.188 .852
Others: Boholano, 65.45 10.47
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray

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, 20.57 7.81
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray
Posttest
Cebuano 58.40 17.96 -3.422 .002*
Others: Boholano, 33.71 11.51
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray
Retention
Cebuano 43.84 17.57 -2.947 .006*
Others: Boholano, 23.43 8.77
Ilongo, Manobo,
Tala-andig, &
Waray
 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): 11551169.

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. Nide ili Ortaretim Kurumlarnda Okuyan
rencilerin Matematik Dersine Kar Kalplam Tutumlar, XIV. Ulusal Eitim
Bilimleri Kongresi, (28-30 Eyll 2005), Denizli: Pamukkale niversitesi.

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, 213219.

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

between language and girls' schooling. In Melin, Mia (ed) EducationA 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): 10761090.

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 Zealands 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, 320.
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: Childrens 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 doesnt 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 Asias
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 Childrens 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.
MUAA, 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 IEAs
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 Tomorrows 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 Educationor 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, 289314.

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

International.

TATE, W. F., & DAMBROSIO, 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.