This week I tried the “hear shapes” activity in the Polygon section of Mathigon with a Grade 3 class. I wasn’t totally sure how it would go, but they were so into it. The room got quiet in that focused way where you know they’re really thinking. They were listening carefully, testing shapes, and arguing (in a good way!) about what was controlling the sound.
At one point there was a shape that almost everyone drew the same way, but the example on the site showed it differently. Instead of just saying one was right, we stopped and talked it through. Would their version follow the same sound rule? Why or why not? That turned into a really interesting conversation about structure versus appearance. We also started brainstorming how we could add angle sounds to help clarify the different shapes.
Guiding Questions:
How can we sort and describe shapes using their attributes?
Curriculum link: Students identify and describe 2D shapes by characteristics (e.g., number of sides, symmetry).
What stays the same when we rotate or flip a shape?
Curriculum link: Exploring transformations supports understanding of shape properties and geometric reasoning.
Can shapes that look different have something in common mathematically?
Curriculum link: Comparing and classifying shapes based on shared attributes (e.g., quadrilaterals with four sides) encourages reasoning and justification.
How can we use words, drawings, and symbols to explain what we notice?
Curriculum link: Communicating mathematical thinking using multiple representations is emphasized in the curriculum.
The Story
We begin with the built-in Polygon example and listen first. Before any formal explanation, students notice patterns and make guesses about the rule. This supports the BC emphasis on reasoning and predicting before formalizing ideas.
After revealing the rule (for example, number of sides controls pitch and length of the note controls side length), students recreate the shapes to test their understanding.
From there, we shift toward classification and justification:
Can you find two shapes that sound the same?
Why do they sound the same?
What mathematical property is controlling the sound?
This naturally leads into conversations about quadrilaterals (square vs. rhombus), equal sides, angles, and structure — directly supporting BC geometry outcomes.
Integrating Embodied Learning & Other Learning
Build and manipulate shapes digitally.
Rotate and reflect shapes and see how that changes the sound
Come up with body movements to go along with the sounds
Possible Extensions
Add an “angle rule” to connect to measuring and comparing angles
Try to figure out how to incorporate area of the shape into sound
Oops, I forgot to add in my artwork from this week. I tried using base 4 numbers and using concentric squares instead of circles.
I thought I had commented on post earlier, but it seems to have vanished into the cracks in the cloud. Ah well!
ReplyDeleteI am a big fan of Desmos activities ( although I don't love how many of them require students to be inside their screens). This listening one doesn't require devices for students, and that makes it even better! What a lovely conversation that was inspired when everyone drew a sound the same way but it didn't match the "website's example". It sounds like it led to some great thinking about how we communicate different math ideas and the importance of clarity and being specific.
Nicole, your first stop about schools being built on the “grid” really stayed with me. We talk about integration so easily, movement across the day, numeracy across the curriculum, but the physical and temporal structure of schooling reinforces separation at every level: bells, rooms, timetables, subject blocks. It made me think about how often teachers are asked to innovate inside systems designed for compartmentalization. That tension is real.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that teacher pedagogy is the most powerful lever we can control feels both empowering and heavy. I appreciated your observation that teachers in the study seemed more relaxed and invested. That feels significant. When teachers feel supported, with structure, training, materials, a defined framework like EASY Mind, innovation becomes sustainable rather than exhausting. I agree with you: it is rarely lack of interest. More often it’s cognitive load and coverage pressure that limit experimentation.
Your “hear shapes” activity is such a thoughtful example of integration done well. I love that you paused when students’ drawings didn’t match the example and asked whether their version still followed the sound rule. That move from “right answer” to “structural reasoning” feels deeply aligned with this week’s theme. It’s not about adding something flashy, it’s about making structure perceptible.
Your question about willingness versus structural support is important. I do think many of us would try a program like EASY Minds, especially with professional learning and materials. At the same time, I’m wondering if we can also build integration in small, intentional ways without waiting for a full program. This week, in working with rhythm and Cuisenaire rods, I noticed that even one carefully designed embodied-to-symbolic sequence can shift the tone of a lesson without overhauling everything.
That connects directly to my current context. I have a Grade 4 class working on area and perimeter right now, and I would love to share this kind of embodied entry point with their teacher, perhaps starting with movement around taped floor shapes or building and measuring large-scale models before formal notation. That feels like a manageable way to gently disrupt the “grid” from within, not dismantling the structure entirely, but softening its edges through thoughtful design.
Thank you for pushing the conversation toward structure and sustainability. As someone in a leadership role, your reflection challenges me to think not just about what teachers should try, but how I can create the permission, time, and support that makes experimentation possible.
Interesting that you constructed your concentric squares from the outside in rather than from the inside out! Both ways work well, and I had never thought of doing it this way!
ReplyDelete