Inquirer's SPECIAL REPORT Language: Math without numbers, systems building without Lego pieces

DAP, Lego, watch out for the theory of BIBINGKA tomorrow. 

By Isabel Pefianco Martin, Resty M. Cena, Ricardo Ma. Nolasco  

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/630540/language-math-without-numbers-systems-building-without-lego-pieces

(Second of three parts)

We are proposing two core subjects, Wika 1 and 2, in the general education curriculum (GEC) for college. They deal with language as an integrative system and as a systems-building enterprise; they are not courses for learning Tagalog/Filipino or Philippine literature.

A key idea in the new GEC is holistic education through a multidisciplinary approach. The GEC introduces students “to different ways of knowing” and “to broad and wide-ranging understandings.”

In broad terms, a multidisciplinary approach examines issues in one discipline through the lens of various fields of study and reexamines the issues in reverse.

Human problems are products of the interplay of complex social and natural factors. An approach that integrates perspectives from different fields offers better solutions.

Aspects of language

Wika 1 will examine the contributions of related disciplines in explaining various aspects of the nature of language and its use.

Is language a uniquely human trait? What distinguishes human languages from animal forms of communication and artificial languages? Do we “learn” our first language (L1) or does it naturally manifest itself, like walking?

Does language shape the speakers’ world view? Does the critical period hypothesis apply to second languages as well? Is it better to learn through one’s L1 or through a language of wider communication like English? Why do people go to war over language?

On a personal level, Wika 1 will alert students to the ways language is used to persuade or to manipulate, to dominate and control, and to make or destroy identities.

Understanding the puzzle

Various disciplines have contributed pieces in understanding the puzzle of language. The relationship is not one-way.

Language serves as a primary source of data in many disciplines: sociology, psychology, culture, philosophy, criminology, politics and the law, mind and brain sciences, and human migration (language data confirmed that maritime Madagascar in the African continent was settled by migrants from our part of the world).

Wika 1 will deal with how these various fields are enriched with language data. Students will emerge with sensitivity to and experience in crafting holistic and integrative explanations, and, at the very least, with scientific knowledge that will help them make informed statements on language issues.

The new GEC is about education for innovation in the 21st century. The mantra at the global stage, and increasingly at the personal level, is “Innovate or perish.” The key to innovation is the ability to (re)build “things.”

Systems-building

The GEC aims to prepare students “to think innovatively, and to create solutions to problems.” And yet, conspicuously missing is the one course that prepares the mind for innovation: a course on examining system flaws and (re)building systems.

The second GEC course, Wika 2, is a systems-building course.

Doing well in many endeavors today depends on harnessing “think big” ideas. But with big ideas come massive data. Making sense of this massive data requires an organizing theory and a series of models to test the theory.

Out of this will emerge a well-defined system that describes how the underlying mechanism works. Without this understanding, there can be no assessment of flaws, no innovation, and without innovation, no progress.

Like the objects of inquiry of the physical sciences (the solar system, for example), language is a (layered) system.

Investigation methods

Discovering the properties of this complex system follows the methods of empirical investigation: From observations, a theory is formulated, which is repeatedly validated internally with more data until contradictory evidence knocks it down, or it collapses under the weight of layers and layers of patches to a weak foundation.

Language as an empirical object of study has two advantages over the physical sciences.

First, language data is straightforwardly accessible. While physics and chemistry experiments require laborious setup of expensive apparatus to generate data, testing a language hypothesis merely engages the experimenter to reflect on knowledge of his language. Thus the “test-revise-gather data” cycle iterates quickly.

The steps are similar to product development: gather usability data, revise model/prototype, product. For gaining experience in systems building, language is an ideal playground.

‘Imperfection’

Language offers an advantage that no physical or mathematical system would dare be associated with: “imperfection.” Language is a “good enough system for the purpose,” an optimal system. It does not achieve the perfection of mathematical systems.

Superimposed on top of the underlying deterministic component are speaker innovation in response to functional pressures; as a result, language is always in a process of accommodation.

The study of this “good enough system” confers an advantage because the biological and human systems the students will encounter in later years are similarly optimal.

Language is mathematics without the numbers, systems modeling without the Lego pieces. Language is an exemplary training ground to build generalized abstract systems. This prepares students in their quest for specialized solutions in their chosen fields.

Wika 1 will introduce students to a multidisciplinary, evidence-based and argument-driven approach to language study. Wika 2 will teach them how to make systems work better.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Resty M. Cena (restycena@gmail.com), Dr. Ricardo Ma. Nolasco (rnolascoupdiliman@gmail.com) and Dr. Isabel Pefianco Martin (mmartin@ateneo.edu) are practicing Filipino linguists and educators.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/630540/language-math-without-numbers-systems-building-without-lego-pieces#ixzz3AnCJHGL0

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Inquirer SPECIAL REPORT A language war in the time of DAP

This a good read in the timely issues of DAP and MTB-MLE
by Dr. Ricardo Ma. Nolasco, Dr. Resty Cena and Dr. Isabel Martin

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/630166/a-language-war-in-the-time-of-dap

(First of three parts)

MANILA, Philippines–Requiring Filipino as a subject and as a language of instruction in college will be good for Philippine education. For this to happen, the reasons given by the pro-Filipino side in this controversy will have to be robust and compelling.

Proponents for Filipino as a language of instruction anchor their stand on two arguments. The first is a familiar one: Filipino has been recognized under the 1987 Constitution as the national and official language for education and communication.

The second argument is that teaching Filipino and using it as a language of instruction, especially in higher education, will contribute to its intellectualization.

But here comes the rub. The constitutional provision on Filipino as medium of official communication and instruction is not without conditions. These conditions are contained in the following sections of the nation’s Charter:

(1) “Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem appropriate, the government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.”

(2) “For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.”

(3) “The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.”

Clearly, Filipino is only one of the country’s official languages. At the grassroots, the local language joins Filipino and English as an official medium in governance and in education.

3 laws

In fact, Congress recently passed three laws that redivided the instructional space among the learner’s first language (L1), English and Filipino. Enacted in 2012 was the Kindergarten Education Act followed in 2013 by the Early Years Act and the Enhanced Basic Education Act.

Now enshrined in law is the country’s language-in-education policy:  L1-based multilingual education. Students at the elementary grades will be taught in their first language, but will take up Filipino and English as second language (L2) subjects.

The Department of Education will determine when the shift from L1 to L2 as primary and auxiliary language of instruction should be made, provided the shift is gradual and not abrupt.

To us, the key criterion is the student’s competence to receive academic instruction in their L2s alongside their L1.

The ability to transfer L1 concepts to the L2s and vice-versa ensures that the L2s add to the learner’s L1 competence and do not replace nor subtract it.

That said, a language policy for college education must adhere to the same principle of additive education. Instruction should be delivered in a language or languages understood by the learners.

Diversity

The pervasive socio-linguistic diversity throughout the country is another factor to consider in choosing the appropriate language of instruction.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using L1 or Filipino for some subjects, English for others, and even mixed varieties for the remainder, provided real learning is taking place and the course objectives are being met.

But since there is no law or legislation on the language of instruction at the college level, it is best to leave this issue for individual institutions of higher learning to decide.

The intellectualization of the national language is a noble objective, but one that is clearly secondary to effective student learning.

Besides, the new language-in-education policy already provides us with enough space to develop this predominantly oral language into an academic producer and carrier of knowledge in the higher domains of learning.

Decongesting curriculum

The teaching of Filipino subjects in college is a different matter.  Before, there were nine units of Filipino that formed part of general education until technical experts banished them to Grades 11 and 12.

This runs counter to the very idea behind adding two years to basic education, namely “to decongest the curriculum.”

A study in 2011 compared the educational systems in Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines. Curricular time per subject was found to be longest in the country with the shortest cycle—the Philippines.

If our students were cramming in 10 years what students in other countries were learning in 12 years, why congest the program even more?

No guarantee

In the first place, expanding basic education by two years is no guarantee to quality instruction. A literacy survey in 2008, for instance, reported that one out of every five elementary graduates was functionally illiterate.

A second study in 2010 by Dr. Abraham Felipe and Dr. Carolina Porio concluded that our short education cycle could not be blamed for the low science and math scores of Filipino students.

Why? According to their research, there were countries with short cycles having high scores and countries with long cycles having low scores.

In sum, we are not persuaded by the rationale in removing the Filipino courses in college, and we join the call for its immediate reinstatement in the general curriculum.

In case these courses do not qualify under the new definition of general education, then the correct procedure is to revise the courses, and not to remove them.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Ricardo Ma. Nolasco (rnolascoupdiliman@gmail.com), Dr. Resty M. Cena (restycena@gmail.com) and Dr. Isabel Pefianco Martin (mmartin@ateneo.edu) are practicing Filipino linguists and educators.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/630166/a-language-war-in-the-time-of-dap#ixzz3APNfwEKH
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook