This week I read the article “Reenacting mathematical concepts found in large scale dance performance can provide both material and method for ensemble learning” by Vogelstein, Brady and Hall (2019).
This study used foraging and dissection methodologies to explore how choreographed performances can be used to explore and learn math concepts through ensemble learning and embodied mathematics.
STOP - There were lots of vocabulary terms that were new to me and required some re-reading in order to understand and remember. I’ve listed them below!
Foraging - the researchers examined rich cultural performances for segments that would allow for people-plus-props mathematical learning opportunities.
Dissection - participants viewed the performances and then reenacted different aspects, along with exploring the use of props within the performance.
Ensemble learning - participants must work together to create the reenactment and problem solve the use of the props.
The performances used within this study were from the opening ceremony of the 2016 Rio Olympics. I’ve linked a video of the performance below. To see one of the performances that was used within the study, go to the 12 min mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_qXm9HY9Ro
The results of the study found that dissection and reenactment of group performances can provoke fundamental questions about knowing and interpreting math figures. The participants often found it challenging to reenact moves that appeared to be “simple” at first. Group coordination and communication was necessary in order to understand how to best use the prop in order to replicate the movements. Other findings were that the use of props that were similar to the original performance was important, and that reenactment methods allow for math discoveries within the performance.
STOP - The authors found that quartets were the optimal size group for this particular study, and that the use of similar props was important to the success of the groups. This made me wonder whether 4 is the optimum number regardless of the performance? I also wonder about the practicality of replicating performance materials. I think educators would need to be careful about which performances they chose to replicate, not only in terms of the potential math content, but in the availability of the materials needed. In my relatively small town, it can be difficult to source specific materials on short notice!
FINAL THOUGHTS - I feel like dance and music are my biggest struggle when I think about incorporating the arts into my classroom. It’s really hard for me to find connections to the math curriculum, and the thought of dancing in front of students makes me break out into a cold sweat. Can you see yourself bringing dance into the classroom? How would you incorporate it? What math concepts would be the easiest for you to connect with dance?
Activity
I chose to check out the Rope Polygons lesson plan, and was really excited to give it a try. I convinced my youngest child to try it with me, and we were able to successfully form a square, rectangle, and triangle. Since it was just the two of us, we struggled to create shapes that had more than 4 corners. I let her be the “boss” of our efforts, and she was able to direct me on where to stand and how to hold my hands so that we formed the correct shape. We had a ton of fun, and she’s still talking about it a few days later.
I could see lots of ways to extend this lesson to my older (Grade 8/9) students. For example, they could investigate the relationship between perimeter and area, or determine what shape would have the biggest area. They could enlarge shapes from a worksheet and calculate the scale. They could form complex or irregular shapes and try to determine the perimeter and the area as well.
I appreciate that you provided the definitions for new vocabulary terms. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI am not a dancer either, I can not imagine myself trying to co-ordinate with other performers in a group ( I can not even coordinate b/w my legs and arms). I definitely appreciate the effort and hours of practice that dancers put into coordinating and resulting in beautiful symmetrical patterns.
You brought up an interesting point about 4 being an optimal number for performances. 4 is definitely better than 3 as at any given time, each person has a partner. There are different combinations that can be formed in a group of 4. In a group of 3, usually its one person who gets the limelight and other two are more of a backdrop. While in 4, it increases there are different pairings possible, so each person gets a chance to pair up with 3 others. 4 is not too big of a group, so coordination can be relatively easy. 4 is not too small either - For example a group of 2 can be very small as it involves only one pairing.
As someone with not much personal experience with dance, I would find it a struggle to facilitate dance-based activities with my students. The age group I teach (gr9) also would be a challenge to get students really engaged and not just acting silly or refusing to participate.
ReplyDeleteI just had a conversation with my teaching partner this morning about changing the seating plans for our students and we discussed desk clusters or 2,3,4, or 5. We haven't made a decision yet but narrowed it down to either 4 or 5 as that seemed to be a good size for general group work. With 4s there is the possibility of splitting into pairs, but with absences perhaps groups of 5 might be best since if one student is away they still have a group of 4 to work with... I can see why 4 might be best for performance-based activities.