Edited by David Kluge & Oishi Harumi
Buttoning Down Abstracts: Button Taxonomy
Pamela Lee
Ritsumeikan University |
QUICK GUIDE
Key Words: Vocabulary, Critical thinking
Learner English Level: Low intermediate through advanced
Learner Maturity Level: High school through adult
Preparation Time: Varies
Activity Time: Varies; usually 40-60 minutes
Background
In the button taxonomy exercise, each group of students begins with a
brimming handful of buttons, and ends up with a hierarchical classification.
What I find most valuable about this activity is the access it provides
to a number of abstract ideas. I learned about it while teaching an undergraduate
physical anthropology lab, and it gracefully made the leap to language classes.
I have used it in an integrated-skills English course as a vocabulary exercise,
in a cross-cultural communication class to discuss cultural differences,
and with advanced students as a critical thinking activity.
Preparation
You need a variety of small objects, not necessarily buttons. The anthropologist
who showed me the exercise looted his tool box for nuts and bolts and the
like. I like buttons because they are common to everyone's experience. Whatever
you use, it is good to give each group nearly identical sets of objects.
Comparing finished classifications is part of the lesson and students are
curious about the results of different groups. Some duplication within each
set is useful, too, because grouping buttons that are exactly alike is an
easy first step toward engaging students in the activity.
Introducing the Exercise
Mystery heightens interest, therefore I keep the introduction brief.
I remind students that people like to put things into groups, so "Poodles"
and "Dachshunds" are in the group called "Dogs," and
"Persians" and "Siamese," in the one called "Cats."
I also remind them that smaller, specific groups are part of larger, more
general groups, so "Poodles" are included in "Dogs,"
and "Dogs" are included in "Animals." Depending on the
level, I may use terms like "hierarchy," "classification,"
and "traits," but they are not essential. Conceptualizing "specific"
and "general" categories is very important, though, so I sometimes
repeat these terms in Japanese, and always draw a simple taxonomy on the
board:
Animals
Poodles |
Dachshunds |
Persians |
Siamese |
black |
white |
gray |
brown |
black |
white |
gray |
blue point |
seal point |
I include the color categories to give students a hint for their own
work. However complex the example is, it is important to stress that the
top label must include all of the items the students are working with. Consistency
is also important. "Dogs" is too general to be used on the same
level as "Poodles," and if color names are used for "Persians"
they should also be used for "Siamese." (Consistency may be easier
to explain after students have written some labels.)
Next, students form groups of three or four (larger groups inhibit participation)
and spread out so there is limited interaction with other groups. Each group
receives an envelope with their set of items and a piece of A3 paper so
they have lots of space to organize and label their classification.
Assorted Applications
Vocabulary is a good focus to use with low intermediate students, and
this activity can be linked to a textbook unit on descriptions. If you're
using buttons, it is helpful to go over words for colors, sizes, materials
(wood, leather, plastic, metal), and possibly texture or shape (flat, curved),
but I leave some room for students to use their dictionaries and to practice
asking for information (What is this? It's a shank . . . What do we write
above "rough" and "smooth"? How about "texture"?)
Grouping words into categories is itself a mnemonic device, and leads students
to more and more abstract terminology. (Students arrive at the categories
"two holes" and "four holes" on their own, and some
cleverly label shank buttons under "one hole.")
This exercise was also used near the beginning of a mixed-level content-based
college English course in cross-cultural communication to discuss cultural
differences, with the additional introductory point that different groups
of people have different ideas about the same things.
Advanced university English students did this exercise as part of a unit
on critical thinking. In that exercise, I commented that there are a number
of ways to solve the same problem, and added staples, safety pins, various
paper clips, and bits of Velcro for reasons which are described in the next
section.
The best opportunities for discussion usually come when groups exhibit
their finished work.
The Exhibits and Wrap-up
Students walk around the classroom and look over the classifications
of other groups. After they make their own observations about unfamiliar
vocabulary or clever analyses, I make a few comments about each effort.
There are no "wrong" solutions, so it is easy to find strong points.
"Groupers" who create simple classifications can be congratulated
on their clarity and usually for quick work, too. "Splitters,"
having painstakingly placed each item (other than duplicates) in its own
category, can be compared to museum curators or scientists. Those in between
can be credited with a nice balance between clarity and detail. It is interesting
to note any class trends, or point out a unique approach.
The students' own observations and exchanges allow for reflection in
the vocabulary activity. In the case of the cultural differences focus,
I also ask which classification is best, and develop a discussion addressing
the weaknesses of ranking cultures and limiting ways of solving problems
and the unimportance of some obvious cultural differences. "Do we sometimes
dislike people just because they put their buttons in different places?"
I ask.
With the critical thinking focus, I especially like to compare the groups'
top labels, because these indicate the values at work behind the organization
of materials. "Small Household Items" is a very general but accurate
description of the buttons, safety pins, paper clips, staples, and so forth.
"Things that Hold Things Together" or "Fasteners" indicate
the group was concerned with function. Again, I ask, "Which is best?"
aiming to conclude with students perceiving how intent and interest shape
organization and identification.
I think this exercise has potential for more applications in language
classes, and recommend it as a hands-on vehicle to the abstract world of
words and concepts.
Article copyright
© 1998 by the author.
Document URL: http://www.jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/files/98/apr/shr_lee.html
Last modified: April 20, 1998
Site maintained by TLT
Online Editor
|