E
lementary teachers of science are at a great advantage because
observation—collecting information about the world using our
five senses—and classification—sorting things by properties—
come so naturally to children. Many examples of classification
occur in science: Scientists, for example, group things starting with large
categories, such as living or nonliving, and then further classify them into
more distinct groups based on specific properties. Living things could
be plants or animals, and animals could be vertebrates or invertebrates.
Vertebrates could then be further classified as birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, or fish, etc., with further classifications made by paying
closer and closer attention to more specific, shared properties. Classification is always based on what the scientist is studying—those same
animals, for example, could be classified differently, into such categories
as omnivore, carnivore, herbivore, etc.
Buttons are ideal objects when teaching children about properties and
classification. These familiar and inexpensive objects provide a meaningful teaching tool in the classroom. This lesson can be presented either
as a basic introduction to classification by properties, or it can be used to
offer increasingly complex explorations that help students experience a
more in-depth understanding of properties. We used the following lesson with fourth-grade students, but the lesson can easily be adapted for
use with children at any cognitive and developmental level or grade.
By Sarah J. Carrier and Annie B. Thomas
Simple buttons prompt
children to discuss
properties.
Getting Started
The only materials needed for this lesson are a bag full of buttons
and premade Venn diagram mats (described below). We purchased
various boxes of buttons at a discount store with little expense. The
only requirement is that the collection contains buttons with various
characteristics—different colors, sizes, textures, number of holes, etc.
Buttons that fill one-half of a gallon-sized plastic storage bag are enough
for most classrooms.
January 2008 21
Bring Out the Buttons
As we walked around the room to distribute a big handful of buttons to each predetermined group of three to
four students, we reminded them not to put the buttons
into their mouths—sense of taste would not be needed
here! However, sight, touch, and maybe even smell or
hearing would be involved. (For example, students can
try to sense odor in wooden buttons; the sound of buttons dropping varies depending on the size, material,
and button surface.)
Once everyone had buttons, we explained the
next task: Observe the similarities and differences
among the buttons and discuss these findings with
your group. As we walked around the room, students
discussed grouping buttons by different characteristics or properties. Many started with colors or solids
compared to patterns. Children were excited to share
their own observations. We heard such comments as,
“This one still has string on it!”; “What do you call
this thing on the back of the button with no holes?”;
and “My favorite button is this one!” (Many students
quickly identified their “favorite” buttons.)
After a few minutes, we called the class to attention
to discuss their observations. Each group explained the
various properties of their own set of buttons. Most
groups included color, size, shape, pattern, texture—
whether the buttons were rough, smooth, scratchy, or
bumpy—number of holes, or shank (those without
holes) buttons. Some groups even created additional
relevant properties we had not considered, such as
“shades of red” category, which included red buttons
and various shades of pink.
After listing and recording all of the observed properties on the chalkboard, we asked the students to classify
the buttons by properties. As we circulated the room,
we conducted formative assessments to check for
understanding of the terms by asking the groups what
characteristics or properties they used to form their
groups and to explain their sorting choices.
22 Science and Children
Photographs courtesy of the authors
We began the activity with a discussion of the word
property. Children were quick to provide their own
definitions, such as “characteristics,” “features,” and
“qualities.” One student assumed the word meant
land. After a discussion of multiple meaning words
and context clues, we related the different meanings of
properties depending on the usage. To illustrate properties further, we pointed out the children’s different
characteristics. We spent approximately 10 minutes
sorting ourselves by eye color, hair color, type of shoes,
height, and number of siblings. Modeling similarities
and differences in this way set a basic foundation to
compare buttons and then ultimately analyze them in
a Venn diagram.
To challenge the groups, we walked to each desk and
removed all except one of each group’s piles of buttons.
An example of this would be leaving only the pile of
blue buttons from the groups of buttons classified by
color. We then instructed them further: “Now sort this
group using another property.” After a few moments
of questioning facial expressions, most students realized that they could further sort these blue buttons by
another property, such as size.
Venn Diagrams for Children
A Venn diagram mat is simple to make: we drew two
overlapping circles on a piece of 12 × 18 construction
paper and laminated it. While standing in front of the
class so all could view my simple organizational tool,
we explained how Venn diagrams would help us sort
things by characteristics.
Students had previously practiced using this diagram with a simple activity using pattern blocks to
manipulate and visualize organization by properties.
We had labeled one circle “Blue” and the other circle
“Square.” Students quickly understood that blue
squares belonged in the overlapping section that was
part of both the blue and the square circles. Various
other colored squares belonged in the nonoverlapped
square circle, and all of the other blue shapes besides
squares belonged in the nonoverlapped section of the
blue circle.
On the day of the button activity, we reviewed how
to do a Venn diagram and modeled a more symbolic
diagram, labeling one circle as “Dogs” and the other
circle as “Cats.” As a class we discussed the similarities
and differences and the placement of the characteristics
of each. Some examples of shared properties in the
overlapping section of this Venn diagram were “mammal,” “fur,” or “pets.” Students told me that properties
unique to dogs were “bark” and “wag tail when happy.”
Button Basics
Properties unique to cats were “climb trees” and “litter boxes.” We now felt students were ready to use the
diagram with buttons.
Connecting to the Standards
Sorting Buttons
Content Standards
Each group shared one diagram. We asked the children to choose only two button properties they had
discussed and label each circle on their Venn diagrams
with one property. Students had to decide on properties
that would have buttons belonging in each circle, some
in both of the circles, and some in the overlapping area
of the Venn diagram. This decision was difficult for
students. We challenged them to create their own labels
for the circles. For example, if students label one circle
for buttons with two holes and the second circle for
buttons with four holes, there will be no overlap. This
This article relates to the following National Science
Education Standards (NRC 1996).
Grades K–4
Standard B: Physical Science
• Properties of objects and materials
acteristics as well as overlap. For example, one group
labeled a circle “Blue” and the other circle “Brown.”
There was no overlap here, so we asked them to create
other properties that are unique but also shared. They
agreed to use color for one circle and number of holes
for the second circle.
Sharing Properties
trial-and-error process is valuable for student problem
solving and decision making that is very much a part of
science. The class spent approximately 15–20 minutes
creating their diagrams.
An example of an effective Venn diagram would show
one circle labeled for buttons with four holes and the
other circle labeled for buttons that are black. The “Four
Hole” circle would contain buttons with four holes that
are not black. The “Black” circle would contain buttons
that are black and have either shanks or two holes. The
overlapping middle section would contain buttons that
are both black in color and have four holes. The area
outside the circles would contain the buttons that have
none of the properties of the named circles.
Observing children working with the diagram served
as a useful informal summative assessment—we were
able to check for student understanding of properties
as well as their abilities to classify by similarities and
differences. When students had difficulties labeling
the circles, we posed questions to clarify or to guide
them to choices that allowed for unique button char
At the conclusion of the activity, each group shared their
Venn diagrams, both the ones that had buttons in each
of the three areas and the ones that needed revisions.
The efforts that required revisions were presented as
processes rather than failures. We explained to the class
that in science we often come to dead ends that require
alterations and shifting approaches. These are not
mistakes or failures but rather redirections. We talked
about how scientists organize the world through classifications. When a scientist finds an unknown animal,
he or she can determine that it is a vertebrate because
it has a backbone. The next question is whether it falls
into the category of bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal,
or fish, depending on its characteristics.
This button activity introduces and reinforces the
meaning of the term properties in science. It provides
students with experiences using the science-process
skills of observing and classifying and allows them to
experience the decision-making strategies used in science. Best of all, this activity is easy and affordable. n
Sarah J. Carrier ([email protected]) taught
elementary school for 17 years in Gainesville, Florida,
and is currently an assistant professor in elementary
science education at North Carolina State University
in Raleigh, North Carolina. Annie B. Thomas teaches
K–5 investigative science at Gainesville Country Day
School in Gainesville, Florida, and is an adjunct professor of science methodology courses at the University
of Florida, Gainesville.
Resources
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
January 2008 23