Grades 2 to 3 - Shape and Space (3-D Objects and 2-D Shapes)

The sub-organizer contains the following sections:
Prescribed Learning Outcomes
Suggested Instructional Strategies
Suggested Assessment Strategies
Recommended Learning Resources

PRESCRIBED LEARNING OUTCOMES

It is expected that students will describe, classify, construct, and relate three-dimensional objects and two-dimensional shapes using common language to describe their properties.

It is expected that students will:

compare, contrast, sort, and classify two-dimensional shapes and three-dimensional objects using two or more attributes
identify, count, and describe the faces, vertices, edges, sides, and angles of polygons and solids
describe and name three-dimensional objects (cubes, spheres, cones, cylinders, pyramids, and prisms) and use appropriate two-dimensional names to describe their faces
describe and name pyramids and prisms by the shape of the base
construct skeletons of a three-dimensional object from a model and relate the skeletons (nets) to models
demonstrate through dismantling that a rectangular solid has more than one net
make identical, congruent two-dimensional shapes
construct and rearrange a design using a set of two-dimensional shapes
recognize congruent three-dimensional objects and two-dimensional shapes in the environment
explore the concepts of points, lines, perpendicular lines, parallel lines, and intersecting lines on three-dimensional objects

To view the prescribed learning outcomes for Shape and Space (3-D Objects and 2-D Shapes) in other grades click on an icon below.

SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

Children at this age are learning to distinguish the differences between two- and three-dimensional objects. They develop and refine their skills and vocabulary by recounting their experiences with exploring, sorting, and classifying, and by constructing geometric figures.

Have groups of students sort the sports equipment in the school gym or stationery supplies in the classroom into no more than four categories. Ask the groups to explain their categories and the common attributes or properties of the items in each category. Then have the groups re-categorize the equipment, using different criteria.
Have students reach into a bag or mystery box to select a three-dimensional item and, without looking at it, describe the item by telling about its faces, edges, corners, and other properties. Encourage other children to guess what the object might be.
Use collections of three-dimensional objects to introduce vocabulary (cubes, spheres, cones, cylinders, pyramids, and prisms). Ask: What other things can fit into these groups? Why?
Extend students' ideas about geometry by asking speculative questions, such as:
- What if there were no (squares, rectangles, triangles) in the world?
- What things would have to change?
- What would a grocery store look like if there were no rectangular prisms?

SUGGESTED ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

The physical world is filled with an array of two- and three-dimensional shapes and objects. Exploration with these shapes and objects provides students with opportunities to generalize to other contexts. As students become more proficient in identifying and classifying these objects, their ability to use appropriate language in their conversations improves. Thus, observation and conversation are the most useful means to identify student progress in this area.

Observe

Observe students as they sort and classify objects in a variety of situations. Use a checklist or observation form to document this information. Note how individual students approach the task:
- What attributes do they tend to start with?
- What other attributes do they focus on? How fluent are they in describing attributes?
- To what extent do they use a systematic approach?
- How precise is their language in describing the objects and their attributes?
- How accurately and precisely do they use comparative language?
- How broad or narrow are their categories?
- Which students are easily able to sort by two or more attributes? Which students look for subtle differences as a basis for sorting?
- How flexible are they in their approaches? (Which students focus on the same attributes or use the same system in all situations? Which students appear to vary their methods deliberately? Which students appear to work in a random way?)
- To what extent are they able to generalize about the categories they create? (Are they able to name or label their categories? How appropriate or precise are their labels?)