13

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the review of literature and other relevant studies

that provide the conceptual basis of the study on the English-Cebuano Code-

Switching Instructions: Its Effects in the Academic Performance of Grade 7 of

Southern Philippines College – SPC.

Related Literature and Studies in Local Setting

Multilingual Education (MLE) is the use of more than two languages for

classroom (Nolasco,2012). It starts from where the learners are, and what they

already know. This is an educational innovation that would serve as the bridge as

the bridge to learn the second language.

Rep. Magtangol Gunigundo, author of House Bill 3719, advocates the use

of the first language as the primary medium of instruction from preschool to

Grade 6 and that English and Filipino should be taught only as a separate

subject without using them as a medium of instruction I elementary. President

Aquino also pushes for this shift if innovative educational curriculum because he

steers the provision of quality education. With this curriculum, Mother-tongue-

based instruction was added in elementary particularly in Grades 1-3 as cited by

(Payodan, 2013). Dr. Luz Almeda, former regional director of the education –

Northern Mindanao, said that it is important for students to have a continuity of

learning to be able to meet the goal of achieving holistically developed learners.

In the Philippines setting, the Secretary of Education Luistro (2012) says

that DepEd will start using 12 major local languages as media of instruction and

as subject matter when cases open in June as part of department’s thrusts to

implement the MTB-MLE. The 12 major languages are Tagalog, Kapampangan,

Pangasinan, Iloko, Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Waray, Tausug, Maguindanao,

Maranao and Chavacano. Based on DepEd order No. 16, s. 2012 the MTB will

be implemented in two modules: (1) as a learning-subject are and (2) as a

medium of instructions. The mother tongue as a subject will focus on the

development of reading and speaking from Grades 1-3, as a medium of

instructions, the mother tongue is to be used in all the learning areas from kinder

to grade 3 except in the teachings of Filipino and English subjects.

The said DepEd also prescribe the use of language learners speak at

home to deliver lessons and in classroom discussions. The MTB-MLE is

implemented from preschool up to Grade 3 and in the Alternative Learning

System.

In the Philippines, studies on Filipino-English codeswitching show its

functions in facilitating student learning of content subjects. Limoso’s (2002)

study on codeswitching in a college literature classroom revealed that the

teachers codeswitched mainly to perform the effective transfer of knowledge

during classroom instruction. The study also showed that using the speech mode

engages the students in the learning process through active participation in the

lesson and collaborative class activities. It was assumed that the students were
 15

most likely to understand the lesson when teachers communicate in a familiar

language.

Abad’s (2005) study on classroom discourse in a high school Christian

Life Education class concluded that codeswitching is not a clash, but a

complement of two languages. Codeswitching helped the teacher to bridge the

gap between the Bible and the learners to explain the concepts in simplified form

and help them find meaning in Bible reading. Canagarajah (1999) maintains that

codeswitching enables the teacher to proceed into greater detail and depth. I.P.

Martin’s (2006) research project on codeswitching in Science courses in selected

Philippine tertiary-level institutions reported that the discourse mode “does

support educational goals of delivering content knowledge.” This study reinforced

the functions of codeswitching in achieving not only cognitive but also affective

goals during instruction.

Metilla’s (2007) work revealed the codeswitching patterns of senior high

school students in a private high school during classroom activities and break-

time conversations. These patterns formed the basis in proposing measures in

limiting its use in the classroom since its functions in various communicative and

social functions as well as in learning cannot be ignored. Maintaining English as

the medium of instruction during formal discussions, allowing codeswitching

during group work or only in the most important and appropriate contexts, and

discouraging the indiscriminate use of the speech mode were proposed.

Related Literature and Studies in Foreign Setting

In other studies of codeswitching abroad, the speech mode is shown to be

useful in a teacher’s management of classroom activities. In Macaro’s (2001)

study on codeswitching of pre-service teachers in foreign language classrooms,

the subjects’ reflections and beliefs on using the speech mode during instruction

were analyzed. His case study of six teachers revealed that conveying

procedural instructions and keeping control of the students and/or reprimanding

them were some occasions for two teachers to codeswitch.

In addition, codeswitching is also shown to be beneficial in creating a low

anxiety atmosphere in the classroom. As opposed to an “English Only” policy as

the language of instruction, forcing students to speak English, or any language

that is not their first language, before they are ready to is extremely anxiety-

provoking, most especially when they are asked to do this in front of a class

(Krashen, 1981). Krashen (cited in Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986, p. 127)

asserts that when anxiety is heightened, an individual becomes unreceptive to

language learning and acquisition. Thus, because of

its non-threatening nature, Canagarajah (1999) claims that codeswitching

encourages empathy.

According to Krashen (personal communication, December 14, 2004),

speech production proceeds from comprehension of input. Oral fluency is not the

result of more speaking. It is not forced nor taught directly; rather, speaking

ability emerges on its own after the learner has built-up competence through
 17

comprehending input. Moreover, students in any class are at different levels of

acquisition depending on their amount of comprehensible input obtained and the

attitude towards the target language (Krashen, 1981). Access to input-rich

environments which promote second language learning eventually discourage

the persistence of the mixed mode. However, a significant study by Wagner-

Gough and Hatch (cited in Krashen, 1981, p. 10) revealed that environments

outside the classroom or the real world are often quite unwilling to provide the

learner with comprehensible input.

On the other hand, other studies also present counterarguments to

codeswitching. First, codeswitching limits the learners’ access to comprehensible

input which is a pre-requisite to second language learning. According to Polio

and Duff (1994), “the students consequently miss useful opportunities to process

communicative target language input, to practice new target language structures

thoroughly in nonmechanical ways, and also to express and resolve

comprehension problems in the target language” (p. 322).

Second, codeswitching can also present problems to the social

development of the learners because it can stifle their communication with

people of other cultures whose language differs from their own. Codeswitching is

a nonstandard variety appropriate for interaction with family and friends and in

certain circumstances at school (Trudgill, 2000), but it cannot be a language to

wider communication.
 18

Third, while it is only natural for bilinguals to codeswitch, Jones (2000)

argues that code-switching can be “pernicious” (p. 235) to language

development. It prevents the learners from receiving input that can expose them

to life-like situations of target language use. Thus, codeswitching in content areas

whose materials are presented in English disables the students from learning the

registers specific to the disciplines. In particular, the language of Science and

Mathematics is highly technical that there are no equivalent terms in the Filipino

vocabulary that can aptly translate these. De Guzman (cited in Brigham &

Castillo, 1999, p. 25) argues that Filipino has not reached an intellectualized level

that frequent borrowing of English terms can possibly lead to confusion of

meanings of concepts in the learners’ minds.

Last, critics view codeswitching as a way to compensate for diminished

language proficiency. In a study by Chick (cited in McLellan & Chua-Wong, 2002,

p. 13), the findings show that this mode is a comfortable excuse to hide the

incompetent bilingual speaker’s poor command of English and his inadequate

mastery of the subject matter, and to make it appear that effective learning is

taking place.