Heshell S.

Ellaga

April 10, 2016

Classroom Observation

The Grade 7 lesson dealt with analogy. The methodology applied in the lesson
plan is called 4As with Activity, Analysis, Abstraction and Application. Within the 40minute class, the teacher aimed to achieve three objectives. These objectives targeted
students to define what analogy is, to give the common types of analogy and to provide
a word that will complete the given sets of analogy. The definition of analogy was given
as an assignment during the previous meeting. Meanwhile, the ten (10) types of
analogy were covered in Abstraction where the teacher presented examples for each
type. In the Activity, the sets of analogy had missing words in them that students
needed to fill up.
Analogy is linked with the word association methodology grounded on
psychology (Schmitt, 2000). The connection that the students have to make between
related words explores the organization of mental lexicon among the learners. It is
assumed that these learners will demonstrate systematicity with the responses they
make in the stimulus provided; the results will not be random words. The lesson can be
categorized as paradigmatic association which is in itself meaning-based. However,
there were still some responses that are not entirely parallel with the supposed answer
because there is still a wide variety of relationships that could be made.
The lesson can be largely associated to the notion of Macalister (2012) that
learning vocabulary is seen as a foundation of language learning.

According to

Macalister (2012), the objectives of a lesson are classified into four namely Language,

Ideas, Skills and Text. The lesson on analogy is categorized in the language goal i.e.
vocabulary. Since the lesson analogy is part of a repertoire included in the curriculum,
the curriculum then anchors itself on this theory.
Moreover, looking at Williams study (2006), teaching language can be done
through the use of mathematics. In analogy, mathematics was basically used in looking
for the common denominator of terms. Although there was minimal effort on the part of
the students as they go on with the class, mathematics was indispensable in the study
of analogy. In the same study of Macalister (2006), it is explicated that college-age or
older students would more likely to adapt the application of mathematics in language
learning since they have competent analytical learning styles than those of younger
students. Looking at the associations made by the learners, however, it was also
evident that the Grade 7 students were learning analogy using mathematics through
finding the common denominator as instructed by the teacher. Although the
mathematics used was basic, still, it was observable.
The sets of analogies given as examples to the students follow Krashens Input
Hypothesis. The example like car: land:: airplane: sky helped students understand what
analogy is since they are knowledgeable of the inputs; they understood the word and
the world. It is essential that comprehensible input be considered by the teacher in
presenting lesson so that concretization of concept is ensured. However, presenting
students with words embedded in context/text may lead to more comprehensibility of
analogies made.

For the motivation part of the lesson, the students were asked about something
that is common on the provided words. Everyone who was able to answer was given a
point counted for recitation. This served as an extrinsic motivation in the language
learning process. This can be attributed to Howards Gardners position that motivation
plays an integral part in the learning of language. Specifically, this practice in the
classroom is categorized under instrumental orientation since the desire of the students
is to receive merit from the teacher.
It is noteworthy that Ellis (2006) cites in his paper that deductive method is best
applied when teaching simple rules, like in the case of analogy. Consequently, deductive
method was applied by the teacher during the lesson. This method was exhibited when
the teachers asked for the definition of analogy before presenting and discussing
examples.
These practices of the teacher in the classroom may have been the product of
theories or the other way around. As Kumaravadivelu (2006) puts it, teachers should
practice what they theorize and theorize what they practice.

References
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40 (1), 83-107.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40
(1), 59-81.

Macalister, J. (2012). Pre-service teacher cognition and vocabulary teaching. RELC

Journal, 43 (1), 99-111.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Richards, J. (Editor). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Williams, H. (2006). Maths in the grammar classroom. ELT Journal, 60 (1), 23-33.