Filipino Language Teaching and Testing for Beginners:

The Malaysia and Brunei Experience

Frieda Marie Bonus Adeva
Language Centre, Universiti Brunei Darussalam
Abstract

This paper imparts the experiences and challenges that the teachers of Filipino are facing in
Malaysia and Brunei. This will include teaching strategies and testing techniques that the
presenter found to be effective in the teaching of Filipino to Malaysians and Bruneians within
their own contexts.

This paper will also present a brief development of the Filipino Language Program at University
of Malaya (UM) and University of Brunei Darussalam (UBD). At UM, the Filipino Language
Program is under the Southeast Asian Studies Department of the Faculty of Arts and Social
Sciences and at the same time offered as an elective course under the Faculty of Arts and
Linguistics. While at UBD, Filipino Language started when the Faculty of Brunei Studies
required their majors to take up ASEAN languages which include Filipino language. At present,
Filipino is being offered now at UBD’s Language Centre as an elective course open to all degree
programs. With the ongoing Filipino Language Program for more than a decade now at UM and
the newest language program at UBD, this paper will discuss and compare the experience in
Filipino language teaching and testing in both Universities.
Introduction

In this paper I wish to impart my experiences and challenges that I encountered in teaching
Filipino Language at University of Malaya in Malaysia and University of Brunei Darussalam.

Filipino is the national language of the Philippines. It is a language that evolved from Tagalog,
the language of the country’s capital city Manila with the fusion of Spanish, English and other
Philippine languages. There are two official languages in the Philippines: Filipino and English.
Both are used as official languages in the different forms of communication in the government
and as a medium of instruction in schools based on the 1987 Philippine Constitution. But the
national lingua franca in the different regions of the country is Filipino.

Filipino has 26 letters of the English alphabet plus the two letters ñ and ng.

a b c d e f g h I j k l m

n ñ ng o p q r s t u v w x

y z

Generally, the rule of Filipino in spelling follows the pedagogical description “Anong bigkas ay
siyang baybay”. This means that the spelling follows the phonological principles and processes
of Filipino and it must be spelled according to its sound.

Examples:

English: activity → aktiviti ; faculty → fakulti ; teacher → titser

Spanish: ciudad → siyudad ; gobierno → gobyerno ; educación → edukasyon

Filipino is an Austronesian language and a sister language to Malay, the national language of
Malaysia. Malay is also spoken in Brunei (Bahasa Melayu), Singapore and Indonesia (Bahasa
Indonesia). Based from several studies, Filipino and Malay share at least 36% cognate words
(Manueli, 2009).

The Filipino Language in Malaysia and Brunei

Currently there are thousands of Filipinos in Malaysia and Brunei. Majority of these Filipinos
are employed in different fields of work from professional to mini-skilled workers like laborers
in construction sites and domestic helpers. The Filipino language functions also as a lingua
franca among Filipinos in Malaysia and Brunei.
Because of the big population of Filipinos in both countries, the Filipino language is also used in
the religious services. In the Catholic church, there is an allotted time slot for mass in Filipino
every Sunday. There are also non-affiliated Filipino Protestants that are holding their prayer
meetings in the residences which permit the use of the Filipino language in these household
services.

This presence of thousands of Filipinos in both countries popularized and triggered the interest
among Malaysians and Bruneians to learn and study the language. In addition to that, Filipino
has also gained its popularity when Tagalog soap operas were shown on public television
networks which are either dubbed in Malay or with Malay subtitles. There has been an influx as
well of pirated Filipino CDs and DVDs in very affordable prices. Since then, Malaysian and
Bruneian students have become fond of Tagalog/Filipino not only because of the similar cultural
background these countries share, but also of striking similarities of words the Malays and
Bruneians found or heard while watching the soap (Manueli, et.al., 2012).

Beginnings in the Teaching of Filipino Language

In the academe, the Labor Department of the Philippine Embassy in Malaysia and Brunei offers
Filipino Language courses for those Filipino children who were born in these countries and do
not possess language proficiency. The Philippine Embassy in KL also offers Filipino Language
courses for foreigners. Most Filipino children in Brunei go back to the Philippines to pursue
their college degrees after finishing their ‘O Levels’. But it is not easy for them since the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) requires students born and raised abroad to pass the
Filipino Language Proficiency Exam before they could enroll and study at any College or
University in the Philippines. To cope with this requirement, just recently, the Filipino Language
program at the Philippine Embassy in Brunei is being revised in which I am presently involve, to
prepare and equip them in this exam.

Alongside with this, the Filipino Language is being taught at the University of Malaya (UM) and
University of Brunei Darussalam (UBD). These are the only educational institutions in Asia,
aside from the Philippines, that offer Filipino Language in pure academic setting. At UM the
Filipino Language was first offered at the Department of Southeast Asian Studies (DSAS) under
the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) in the school year 1981-82 (Manueli, et.al.,
2012). And now it is also being offered by the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics as an
elective course and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Aside from Filipino, there are other
three Asian languages taught at DSAS, namely, Burmese, Thai, and Vietnamese.

The following description of the development of Filipino courses at UM is from Jubilado (2008)
who pioneered the Filipino language curriculum in this university way back in 1990. Table 1
shows the number of students enrolled in the Filipino courses from 2001 until 2008 at FASS of
UM. It also shows the course codes and the descriptive titles of the courses in Filipino. These
courses are designed for students pursuing the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Southeast Asian
Studies at UM. Each of these courses is taught four hours a week and carries the weight of 3-
credit hours.

Table 1. Enrollment of students in Filipino Courses at UM (Jubilado 2008)

First Semester Second Semester Total

Academic ATEA1319 ATEA2419 ATEA3419 ATEA1419 ATEA2424 ATEA3424 Number

Year (Bahasa (Bahasa (Bahasa (Bahasa (Bahasa (Bahasa of
Filipino Filipino Filipino Filipino Filipino Filipino Students
I-A) II-A) III-A) I-B) II-B) III-B)

2001/02 12 4 2 19 6 2 45

2002/03 15 4 8 18 4 7 56

2003/04 17 7 5 16 8 3 56

2004/05 29 6 8 29 4 8 84

2005/06 30 26 5 26 26 4 117

2006/07 33 17 26 33 16 26 151

2007/08 40 14 17 40 12 17 140

Table 1 also shows that there is a very substantial increase in the number of students taking up
Filipino language courses. The increase is from 45 students n 2001 up to 140 students in the
Academic Year 2007/2008 which presents a 311% increase. Students taking Filipino is made up
mostly of Malaysian citizens. In the academic years 2005 till 2008, there were also students
coming from Brunei who were taking up Islamic and Brunei Studies at UBD.

The first year courses ATEA 1319 and ATEA 1419 are considered as either elective or required
courses among BA students at FASS. As the students are choosing their majors after the first
year of studies, those who are taking BA in Southeast Asian Studies at DSAS are required to take
the remaining four semesters of Filipino courses of ATEA 2419, ATEA 2424, ATEA 3419 and
ATEA 3424. In relation to the course content, these courses are taught inclusive of language,
culture, and Philippine institutions. Various types of texts are employed to ensure the acquisition
of the four macroskills – listening, reading, writing, and speaking. The first year courses are
taught focusing on the basic grammar and sentence types like the Actor Focus Verbs –um/-um-
and mag-, noun case markers and the basic question patterns. As an application to language
functions, these topics are complemented with the teaching of everyday greeting, self-
introduction, asking for and following directions, biographical sketches and the Philippine
geography and tourism. The students are required to write simple biographical sketches of
themselves and of their friends. They are also required to present dialogues, group discussions,
and do individual oral presentation choosing their own topics.

The second year courses ATEA 2419 and ATEA 2424 are preparations for the learning of the
intermediate level of the language. The sentential structures include the use of compound and
complex sentences necessary for intermediate paragraph writing. The complexity of the verb
system is gradually introduced particularly the verbal affixes –in, -an and i-. The students are
further introduced to Philippine Literature focusing on the fables, folklore, poetry and the
narrative. The texts from Philippine History include the pre-Islamic Filipinos, the Islamization
and Hispanization of the Philippines. Classroom activities are also done to enhance the four
macroskills of the students.

The third year courses ATEA 3419 and ATEA 3424 are aimed to enhance the students’
knowledge of the Filipino language and Philippine Institutions. These courses provide the
students the learning of the causative verbs and the number inflectional category in verbs. They
are further immersed into the Philippine Institutions by using the texts based on the novels of Dr.
Jose Rizal, namely, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. The texts from American
colonialism and the contemporary Philippines are also used in the teaching of these courses.
Advanced level of activities are done for the enhancement of the acquired level of proficiency
and skills among students.

As a follow up to this, just recently Manueli and her colleagues (2012) made a study on testing
students’ language proficiency and retention in Filipino as a foreign language taught in Malaysia.
As shown on Table 2 below, students studying Filipino language at UM greatly improved all
these years. Among the four Asian languages being offered, Thai has more number of students
in total and Filipino is a close second.

Table 2. Total number of students studying Southeast Asian languages at DSAS between
school years 1990/1991-2009/2010 (Manueli, et.al. 2012)

Year Thai Filipino Burmese Vietnamese Total

1990/91 12 16 10 38

1991/92 8 13 13 34

1992/93 28 - 9 37

1994/95 10 6 3 25 44

1995/96 4 7 - 8 19

1996/97 5 8 2 7 22

1997/98 8 2 3 2 15
 1998/99 1 0 0 1 2

1999/00 7 2 3 2 14

2000/01 10 3 11 11 35

2001/02 8 2 9 10 29

2002/03 8 8 14 26 56

2003/04 2 5 4 8 19

2004/05 10 8 3 12 33

2005/06 6 5 11 6 28

2006/07 20 26 2 4 52

2007/08 19 17 2 13 51

2008/09 2 12 4 5 23

2009/10 4 15 1 1 21

TOTAL 172 155 104 141 572

On the other hand, the Filipino Language course was just offered at the Language Centre of
UBD two years ago when the Faculty of Brunei Studies required their majors to take up ASEAN
languages which include Filipino language. Now, Filipino is being offered at UBD’s Language
Centre as an elective or breath course open to all degree programs. Other ASEAN and European
Languages are also offered at the Language Centre which are also elective courses open to all
degree programs.

Table 3 shows the number of students enrolled in the Filipino courses at UBD’s Language
Centre when I started it in 2010 up to the present.
 Table 3. Enrollment of students in Filipino Courses at UBD from 2010 to present

First Semester Second Semester Total

Academic LP-1401 LP-2403 LP-2404 LP-1401 LP-2403 LP-2404 Number
Year Filipino 1 of
Filipino 2 Filipino 3 Filipino 1 Filipino 2 Filipino 3
Students

2010/11 17 53 70

2011/12 35 5 60 6 106

2012/13 53 5 4 62
+____

Table 3 shows a similar substantial trend of increase in the number of students taking up the
course. The opening of the Filipino language course gave convenience to Bruneian students who
were taking up Islamic and Brunei studies who used to go to UM to take the Filipino language
course. All language programs at LC are taught four hours a week and carry a weight of 4 credit
units. Students also got an option to obtain a Minor status in Filipino language or other
languages offered at LC. Any student wishing to obtain a Minor status in Filipino or other
languages, the student must successfully complete a minimum of 24 Modular Credits throughout
their respective period of study in UBD. Table 4 shows the modules that must be taken as part of
the Minor program.

Table 4. Modules That Must Be Taken as Part of the Minor Program

Level Module Code and Name

1000 Filipino I

2000 Filipino II and III

3000 Filipino IV, V and VI

At UM, language programs got their own separate goals and module content. At UBD, all
language programs follow the same aims and objectives for each level. In Level 1 language
courses, they are designed to give learners basic skills for communication. They are integrated
courses with equal emphasis on the four macro skills. The aim is to introduce students to
pronunciation, script, vocabulary and basic structures for simple conversations on predetermined
topics. At the end of the courses, students should be able to carry out different permutations of
simple dialogues and participate in informal conversations. Level 2 courses are designed to
build on the skills in Level 1 through developing greater fluency and accuracy in the four macro
skills. All the four skills will have deeper and more detailed focus: (1) reading is focused on
understanding more demanding texts on specially chosen topics; (2) listening is more intensive
for developing vocabulary in context; (3) grammar level is higher requiring more fluency in
verbal aspect patterns; and (4) writing gives more fluency creating continuous texts through a
series of related sentences. Classroom methodology on this level is a combination of paired
work, small group interaction and whole class activities. A range of multi-media materials are
used to support and enhance learning in a nurturing and non-threatening environment. In Level
3, the courses are more designed to further develop the language skills of the students who have
completed the first two lower levels and the target language will now become the primary means
of instruction although explanations in English may still be used for advanced expressions and
concepts. At this level students are given more advanced activities to engage in more complex
conversations in greater depth so that they can compose different genres of texts. Students will
engage in a range of more specialized topics in personal/informal, and professional/formal
contexts. Specifically, the teaching of Filipino grammatical and lexical items and relevant areas
of Filipino culture and customs will be integrated into the teaching of the above skills. Levels 4
and 5 focus on advanced language skills and functions which are useful in the social, academic
and professional environment and students are also taught to use these skills and functions to
communicate in social, academic and professional situations. The highest level, Level 6 courses
are designed to provide students with an understanding of, and practice in, the sub-skills
necessary for writing effective academic essays in the target language, and to develop their
accuracy in the academic essay genre. These courses are also designed to provide students with
the skills of organizing academic and/or professional materials in the target language and to
deliver them to a target audience, as well as the skills in how to become engaged participants
during presentations.

The Module content for Levels 1 to 4 are all functional in approach, therefore students are given
more real classroom activities like combinations of role plays, paired work, small group
discussions and whole class activities.

For assessment, at UM: course work 30%, oral 20% and final examination is 50%. It’s slightly
different at UBD: coursework is 60% and final examination is 40%. To get an A grade, the
student needs to obtain the 76% mark carrying the weigth of 4.0. The conditional passing mark
is set at 36% carrying the weight of 1.0.

The Filipino Language course in both universities has been offered regularly with a minimum of
eight to ten students for each course offering up to at most twenty five students.
Issues and Challenges in Teaching Filipino Language

There are three major issues that I would like to address here: (1) despite both Malay and
Filipino belonging to the same subgroup, students of Filipino face different learning problems,
particularly word order and morphology; (2) the use of English as the medium of instruction; and
(3) non-availability of localized teaching materials, such as Filipino-Malay or Malay-Filipino
dictionaries and textbooks.

1. Malay and Filipino have different systems of marking. Focus/Voice system in Filipino
have been typically categorized as belonging to active-passive dichotomy. Verbs with
Actor Focus affixes such as [-um-] and [mag-] are classified as active verbs, while those
Goal Focus affixes with [-in], [-an], etc. are classified as passive. However, this is not
the case. Based on transitivity, verbs in the Actor Focus are less ‘transitive’ than those in
the Goal Focus which do not belong to the active-passive system (Adeva, 2005) but
showing an ergative-absolutive system.

Ergative-absolutive system

In the ergative-absolutive system the S (single argument of an intransitive construction)

has the same marking with the P (patient/object of the transitive construction) while the A
(agent of the transitive construction) is marked by genitive (Dixon, 1994).

Filipino Voice System

As shown in sentence (1), the verb kuha ‘get’ with a partial reduplication of the initial
syllable ku- with zero affix voice marker correlates with the actor bisita `visitor’ marked
by ang thus making the object plato `plate’ marked by ng indefinite and lamesa `table’
which is marked by sa oblique. The actor bata `child’ in (3) which has the role
experiencer of the action expressed by the verb carries the same marker ang in (1). Both
sentences are intransitives compared to sentence (2).

(1) Ku-kuha ang bisita ng plato sa lamesa

AF-FT+get NM visitor NM plate NM table

‘The visitor will get a plate from the table.’

(2) Kukun-in ng bisita ang plato sa lamesa

GF-FT+get NM visitor NM plate NM table

‘The visitor will get the plate from the table.’

 (3) na-dapà ang bata

AF-PT+stumble NM child

‘The child stumbled.’

In sentence (2) the verb marked with suffix –in correlates with the object plato which is
marked by ang and the actor bisita is now marked by the genitive marker ng making both
noun phrase obligatory in the sentence thus making it transitive.

Malay on the other hand is subject/actor-oriented language and the S has the same
marking with the A. It follows the S-V-O pattern and fits the active-passive dichotomy.
Verbs are never inflected for aspect and uses some aspectual/tense time expressions are
used to determine or emphasize time. Examples below show the differences between the
Filipino and Malay voice systems.

Example:

Imperfective aspect

Filipino: G-um-igising ako ng alas otso ng umaga.

Malay: Saya bangun setiap pukul 8:00 pagi.
`I wake up every 8:00 in the morning.’

Perfective aspect
Filipino: G-um-ising ako ng alas otso ng umaga.
Malay: Saya telah bangun setiap pukul 8:00 pagi.
`I woke up at 8:00 am.’

Contemplated Aspect
Filipino: Gi-gising ako ng alas otso ng umaga.
Malay: Saya akan bangun setiap pukul 8:00 pagi.
`I will wake up at 8:00 in the morning.’
The typological difference of Filipino and Malay has been the greatest obstacle of most
Malaysian and Bruneian FFL students in learning the language (Manueli, et.al. 2012).
Although at times they construct grammatical sentences, most of the time, the
constructions are a mixture of Malay and English syntax infused and executed in a
Filipino sentence.
2. As a foreign lecturer, I use English as the medium of instruction and gradually increase
the usage of Filipino as the student progresses to higher levels of the language. However,
 there are times that the use of English as the medium of instruction does not help at all
due to the students’ lack of proficiency in English. English is considered as a language of
interference in the learning process of the students taking Filipino language. Aside from
this, some students personally feel that English is a foreign language with religious
connotation and therefore contrary to their religious beliefs. But still, whatever reasons
the students have, English is used in teaching Filipino courses alongside the Filipino
language itself.

3. Learn Filipino is only one textbook available for the teaching which is authored by Dr.
Alicio Atilio which was published by the University of Malaya Press in 2001. Among
the reference materials, the students make use also of the books (1) Filipino for
Everyone by Paquito Badayos that was published by Pelanduk Publications in 2000, (2)
Language Phrases by Dr. Atilio and (3) Modern Grammar of Tagalog by Paraluman
Aspillera published by the University of Hawaii Press in 2005.

Testing Proficiency

In testing the language proficiency of students, examinations at UM and UBD’s language has
always been integrated to strike the balance in testing the skills. The test questions are as much
as possible functional and relevant to real life situatins of the students.

One example of this:

Filipino: Bilang malusog at masipag na estudyante, isulat ang mga bagay na maari mong gawin.
Ituloy mo ang mga pangungusap sa ibaba.

`As a healthy and hardworking student, write the things that you can do. Complete the sentences
below.’

Ako ay ________________________________________.

Ako ay ________________________________________ sa umaga.

Ako’y _________________________________________ tuwing lingo.

Ako’y ________________________________________ sa aking mga magulang.

______________________________________________ ako ng maraming libro.

_____________________________________________ ako ng maraming gulay at prutas.

_____________________________________________ akong mabuti para sa aking

kinabukasan.
Or as a variety for student compositions, depending on the target part of the grammar, example
Imperfective Aspect, the students are asked to write in a paragraph or two their daily activities
for the whole week.

Implications and Conclusion

Several revisions have been made throughout the years while the program was being
implemented at UM and now at UBD. There is always a room for improvement and constant
development of the program for effective teaching and learning of Filipino in Malaysia and
Brunei. We need to develop materials specific for the Malaysian and Bruneian FFL learners to
deal with the difference of system s of marking between Filipino and Malay. Despite constant
changes the program have gone through especially at UM, there are still inadequacies in terms of
content and essence. Students sometimes cannot relate to the cultural meaning of certain
vocabularies, as well as find certain constructions complex. As linguists and language teachers,
we should find ways in delivering the grammar of the language easier to acquire as well as learn
the vocabularies faster.

Teaching Filipino to Malaysians and Bruneians is challenging and fun. The lack of the
proficiency in English language among students does not mean that the students are hindered
from learning the language. Although teaching materials are not readily available, teachers of
Filipino can write and produce instructional materials and textbooks that would fit the learners.
In fact, at present, we the Filipino teachers at UM and UBD is now doing a collaborative project
on textbook writing of Filipino for Malaysians and Bruneians which will be published soon by
the University of Malaya Press.

References

Adeva, Frieda Marie B. 2005. Semantic Correlates of Transitivity in Cebuano Stories.

Philippine Journal of Linguistics 36. 1& 2. Manila, Philippines: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines, De La Salle University. 101-159.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jubilado, Rodney C. 2008. The Filipino Language in the Malaysian Linguistic Space. Paper
presented at the First International Conference on “Filipino as a Global Language” at the
University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA on March 17-19, 2008.

Manueli, Maria Khristina, Francisco P. Dumanig and Rodney C. Jubilado. 2012. Paper
presented at the Third International Conference on “Filipino as a Global Language” at CSB
International Conference Center, Malate, Manila, Philippines on August 3-5, 2012.