Sticks

A couple weeks ago, I wrote a post singing the praises of offering rocks for children's play and exploration at the sensory table.  You can find the link here.  Now let me sing the praises of offering sticks for children's play and exploration at the sensory table.

For me, the term sticks was a very broad category.  It included such things as bark, driftwood and sticks of various sizes, shapes, lengths and texture.

 

This display was just one example of items the children could choose from for their play in the sensory table.   This was more than a science table display; it was an invitation for the children to interact with these natural elements in their never ending quest to create.

 

This child balanced sticks over a bowl and then poured sand through the creation. Was this child recreating a camp fire?

 

 

This child got real creative by inserting a crooked stick into the hole of a tree knot to create a microphone. 

 

 

This child found a good size piece of bark to fashion it into a ramp for testing how rocks slid down.  That might sound simple, but in essence the child created a tool for her exploration.

 

Once I knew the children in my room and trusted them to use sticks more constructively than not, I introduced long sticks that I had collected on one of river walks along the Mississippi River.

These children decided to build "bridges" across the width of the table.  They then created a game in which they would place a bug on one of the sticks and then shake the stick so the bug would drop into the table.  (Believe it or not, there was absolutely no sword fighting with these sticks!)

 

I did say I had a broad definition of sticks.  In fact some of the sticks I offered the children were branches.

This child decided to take out all the branches from the sensory table and stack them on the floor.  I really felt like he was "working."  In any case, it fulfilled a need to transport coupled with the physical challenge of moving large pieces of wood. 

 

Again, I pushed the bounds of what constituted a stick by putting a stump and a tree trunk in the sensory table for the children to explore.

Speaking of transporting and physical challenges that children create for themselves, this child decided to move the trunk of the tree to roll it onto the stump.

 

If you want to read more about how I introduced sticks in the classroom and how the children made sense of those natural elements, check out this post and this post.

I knew that sticks were important for children.  Any time I would take a walk with children or my grandchildren, they would inevitably pick up sticks.  Since they were important for children, I made a point of bringing them inside creating a context in which the children found constructive ways to use them.

Rocks

Rocks were one of my favorite things to put in the sensory table.  One reason was: I liked to bring natural elements into the classroom.  Another reason was: rocks in my collection came in all shapes, sizes and colors.  For example, some were porous; some were rough; some were smooth; some were heavy; some were surprisingly light; some were speckled; some had stripes. And another reason was: as a child, I just liked rocks. I would hunt for agates and, every chance I got, I would skip rocks across the water.  (I still like rocks and skip them any time I get a chance.)

Here was an example of a variety of rocks that I exhibited on a table next to the sensory table.  The rocks were there to explore and transport into the sensory table.

This set of rocks had many features to discover.  However, let me highlight just a couple.  There was a small gray rock that was smooth and had a round hole in it.  The fossil rock also had a hole, however the shape was of a telltale snail not smooth and round like the one in the small rock.  On the other hand, the volcanic rock had many holes and was quite rough.  Most of the rocks, like the petrified wood, did not have holes. 

By offering rocks in the sensory table, the underlying question was: What sense would the children make of them? Truth be told, there was no end to the sense the children made of the rocks as they explored their many features.

The rocks served as building material as one child stacked them in one corner of the sensory table.

That may sound simple, but because the rocks were smooth/slippery, different shapes and different sizes, that endeavor challenged his attempt to build higher and higher.

The little gray rock with the nice round hole became a scooping tool measuring just the right amount of sand onto the dustpan.

Another child created a bit of symmetry/art with the rocks by topping his birthday cake with rock  "candles."

One child discovered that by striking two rocks together, she could spice up her concoction with a little bit of cinnamon.  

Somehow she figured out that hitting the soft, reddish-brown rock against the harder rock resulted in tiny flecks that she saw as a special spice.

One child amazed himself by using one rock to draw lines on another rock.   (Do I dare venture a guess that this was how early humans began the transition to written language?)

I have only scratched the surface of how children came to understand rocks, but let me give you one last example of a child making sense with rocks.  This happened with a rock-query episode during which a child searched for rocks with specific attributes.  I wrote it down in real time on a large post-it easel pad sheet that I taped to the wall next to the sensory table.  S is the child and T is the teacher

The child began by looking for a "pretty big rock."  She found what she was looking for but then began a new search for a different kind of rock.  She again found what she was looking for: one that was "shiny, heavy and little.

I could point out that this was a spontaneous vocabulary exercise, but that was just a by-product of a natural conversation about finding the right kind of rock.  That was true of the other examples, also.  Children began to build their knowledge of rocks as a by-product of their experiences with the real rocks.

p.s. Some may be uncomfortable with rocks in their classroom.  There may be an underling fear that children will throw the rocks.  That may be a valid fear so it is important to know your children.  If I thought a child might throw a rock, I would do one of two things: closely supervise the child or remove the rocks.  However, that was so rare, I don't ever remember doing either of those interventions.

I believe that if children are given constructive ways to play with the materials in the sensory table, they will do so responsibly and in the process start to understand the materials and what they can do with them.

One child was very intentional fitting nine rocks into this jello mold. Wait! Are those square rocks in there?  Is there such a thing as a square rock?

Strategy #3 for changing the sensory table.

Two weeks ago I began a series of posts about the three strategies I used to make changes more manageable in the sensory table so every week for the entire school year the children would experience something new there.  The strategies were: 1) to keep an apparatus for a second week but change the medium in the table; 2) to keep an apparatus for a second week but add on to the existing structure; 3) to keep an apparatus for a second week but change its orientation.  To read about the first strategy, here is the link  To read about the second strategy, here is the link.

This week's post is all about strategy #3.  As an example, I will start with an apparatus made from a big box used by moving companies to quickly pack up clothes hanging in a closet.  It is called a wardrobe box.  I set the box up on an incline by taping the box to a wedge contraption and the lip of the table on the low end of the box.  I cut multiple holes in the box so the children had multiple entry points for their play and exploration.  I cut a slit in the low end of the box so when the children poured the feed corn down the wardrobe box incline, the corn dropped into the tub at the end of the table.

 

Children made use of all the holes.

They even even explored the bottom slit through which the corn exited the big box apparatus.

 

This apparatus had two highlights that could have been overlooked.  The first was that the children pouring the corn down the box were connected in play with the children at the bottom of the box.  That was all the more unique because they could not see each other since there was no hole cut out at the bottom of the box except the narrow slit where the corn exited the box.  The second was that it was a total aural experience as the corn tumbled down the inclined box.  It took on greater significance when a child at the end of the box knew to listen to the sound of the tumbling corn so they could get ready to catch the corn as it spewed from the box.

I wanted to use the wardrobe box a second week, but with a simple change.  I removed the wedge contraption and laid the box horizontally across the width of the table.

I used planter trays to support the big box across the width of the table for extra stability.  Not so unexpectedly, the planter trays offered opportunities for children to scoop in a horizontal space.

 

 

There was a huge difference in the children's play from the previous week when the big box was set on an incline.  One of the biggest differences was the sound of the children's play.  On the incline, the sound of the corn tumbling down the box was amplified which made for pretty loud play.  With the box on the horizontal, however, play was significantly quieter.

Another difference was that on the horizontal, children explored the inside of the big box with there bodies more.  The horizontal orientation was at a level that seemed to invite the children in.

 

If you want to make your own comparison, you can find the original write up on the incline apparatus here and you can find the original post on the horizontal apparatus here.

Come to think of it, I did have a 4th strategy for making changes every week at the sensory table more manageable.  There were several apparatus made from wood or tubes or pipes that I would save and set up from year to year.  The examples I used for the three strategies were made out of cardboard.  When I was done with them, I would recycle them.  I knew there would always be a cardboard box when I needed to build a new apparatus. And besides, a new box would inevitably offer exciting possibilities for a completely new apparatus.

Strategy #2 for changing the sensory table

Last week I began a series of posts about the three strategies I used to make changes more manageable in the sensory table every week for the entire school year.  They were 1)to keep an apparatus for a second week but change the medium in the table; 2)to keep an apparatus for a second week but to add on to the existing structure; 3)to keep an apparatus for a second week but to change its orientation.  To read about the first strategy, here is the link. 

This week's post is all about strategy #2.  As an example I will start with an apparatus I called the BRIDGE.  I called it that because an I Mac box formed a bridge between a large furniture box and the sensory table.

 

This apparatus essentially expanded the sensory table.  It left the table as a open reservoir for the feed corn.  It also offered the opportunity for the children to transfer the corn between the boxes and back into the table.  I cut numerous holes on different levels in both boxes.  The structure itself created a new play space under the bridge.

 

Here is another view of the apparatus.  The I Mac box was taped to the lip of the table and embedded in the large furniture box making the structure very sturdy

The children found, explored and gladly played on every level of the apparatus through the many holes.

 

You can find the original write up on this apparatus here

 

For a second week, I kept the original bridge apparatus but added two more boxes: another I Mac box and a long square box.

 

 

The new I Mac box was taped to a planter tray that spanned the width of the table and the long square box was embedded through both I Mace boxes.  By adding more boxes and cutting more holes, I was able to offer the children so many more possibilities for  play and exploration.

 

As you can see, some of that play and exploration was up close and personal.  You can find the original write up on this expanded bridge apparatus here. 

 

Could I have kept adding boxes?  Yes, of course.  In fact one year I kept adding boxes for three weeks until I had over 20 boxes in and around the sensory table.

  

 

Next week: Strategy #3

 

Changing the sensory table

I am often asked: How often did I change things in the sensory table?  My answer has always been that I changed what was in the table every week.  There were two main reasons why.  The first reason was that building the apparatus for the sensory table was a creative outlet for me.  (I do believe that we all need a creative outlet to stay fresh in the classroom.) The second reason was that I wanted to offer children novel sensory experiences on a consistent basis.  To that end, I was able to offer something new in the sensory table every week of every school year I taught.

To make that a manageable proposition, I employed three strategies.  The first was to keep an apparatus for a second week, but change the medium that was in the table.  The second was to again keep an apparatus for a second week but add something to the existing construction.  The third strategy was to again keep an apparatus but change its orientation. (Orientation is highlighted on the right-hand column of this blog.)

Let me give you an example of the first strategy.  For this example, I offer you an apparatus I called horizontal channels. 

 

 

I constructed this apparatus from a box in which a new easel arrived.   It was long, wide and narrow.  I wanted to take advantage of those features so I cut out one complete side and inserted channels. This apparatus rested on top of the cover of the sensory table.  You can find the original write up for this apparatus here. 

The first time I set this apparatus out, I used regular play sand as the medium.  I subsequently replaced the sand with feed corn.

 

 

The corn and sand had different textures; sand felt gritty whereas the corn was smooth.  They made different sounds as they were dropped or slid across the cardboard surface: the sand made scraping sounds whereas the corn made popping sounds.  They had a different smell; the sand had an earthy smell whereas the corn smelled like---well---corn.  There was also a difference in how the vehicles performed in the media; the sand was a little heavier so it took more effort to move it down the channels with the vehicles whereas the corn was lighter so less effort was needed to push the corn.  Because I changed the medium in the sensory table, the children experienced the same apparatus differently.

 

I rarely used the same apparatus more than two weeks in a row.  However, I did find other media to use in the channel apparatus in other years.  

 

One year I used a white play sand.  The sand was soft and dustless and very fluid.  (When buying sand, make sure that it does not contain free silicates.)

 

For the second week, I replaced the sand with wood pellets, which had many of the same properties as corn, but was still a little different.  For example, the pellets were like round, miniature logs that rolled easily through the channels and down the chute.

By the way, if I knew---and remembered---I elicited the children's help during the last class of the week to assist in emptying the medium out of the apparatus into a storage container.

 

 

Clean up and play became synonymous when the children willing helped.  From my experience, children were almost always willing to join in the work if it was real work that made a difference in the classroom and if they felt appreciated for their contribution.

 

Stay tuned for examples of strategies two and three in subsequent weeks.

Here's another idea

Last week I encouraged those who wanted to build constructions for the sensory table to start simple.  Here is another idea: remove the sensory table all together and just replace it with multiple containers, buckets and tubs.  Of course, you also want to provide plenty of those hodgepodge and doohickies.

With this idea, I purposely highlighted the very first phrase of axiom #1 listed in the right hand column of this blog: Children need to transport.  By taking the sensory table out of the room entirely, I created an invitation for the children to devise multiple transporting operations of their own choosing.

Back in March of 2016, I wrote a post about what did happen when the children generated their own transporting endeavors.  I had the audacity to call it: Transporting paradise.

The setup worked so well, I tried a second version of the transporting paradise.  For this version, I removed some of the tubs and buckets and added plastic chutes and cardboard tubes.

The children treated me to a host of new transporting operations, like building a bridge to transport the pellets horizontally.

One child decided to use a plastic chute as a tool to fill the "bridge" plastic chute.  Both instances were brilliant examples of basic engineering assemblages.

With no sensory table to contain the material that usually goes in it, there was more than the usual amount of spillage onto the floor.

However, all that spillage created opportunities for the children to practice their broom and dust pan skills.  More importantly, it turned out to be good practice for taking care of the room through cleaning up our messes.

The second setup really did generate more mess.  I wrote about this setup's unique transporting operations and its subsequent mess in a blog post I called: Don't do this.

For those ECE people who have to share a room, this may actually give you some ideas about buckets and containers that nest inside each other and can be easily stored.  

The setup was rather complex.  You may want to try it, but like I said last week, start simple!

Start simple

I recently did a session on play at the sensory table for the Free to Play Summit curated by Sally Haughey.  It was an hour session that seemed to inspire ece professionals to see the sensory table as a place for new possibilities for play and exploration.   The question is: where to start?

Whenever I talk to people about building at the sensory table, I encourage them to start simple.  Heck, that is how I started.  My first sand table was a yellow square metal box on legs.  It measured two feet by two feet and stood twelve inches off the floor.  For one of my very first builds, I taped a box inside the table.  I added a PVC chute on an incline from the box to the other end of the table.

That was a very simple apparatus that offered multiple entries for the children's play and exploration.  I taped the box in the middle of one side so the children had access to the sand in the table on three sides. They could take the sand from the table and put it in the box; they could dig the sand out of the box; they could transport the sand into the bucket next to the table; they could dump the sand down the chute. A nice feature of this apparatus was: the sand that missed the chute fell into the box and not onto the floor.

Back then, I worked in an infant/toddler room that later became a birth-to-five room.  A simple apparatus like this provided enough novelty to the sand table that the children found multiple ways to scoop, pour and transport the sand.  Even an older infant or young toddler could sidle up next to the little sand table to play in the sand.

Since my sand table was so small, I sometimes expanded it by taping a relatively large box next to the table.  I cut a tab in one side of the box to make a connecting ramp between the box and the sand table.  The big box not only expanded the play area at the sand table, but also added another level for the children's operations.

 

Well, maybe this was not so simple because I had to create a false bottom to lift the bottom of the large box several inches off the floor.  To do that, I cut a sheet of cardboard the size of the box and set it on top of a couple of other boxes to hold it in place and provide strength so the weight of the sand would not make the cardboard sheet sag.  (It is important to understand that there are two boxes underneath the cardboard sheet that created the elevated bottom of the large box.) I then used duct tape to seal the edges and to hold the cardboard sheet in place.

Even when I inherited a larger sensory table, I experimented with rather simple setups.  For one setup, I found two planter trays that fit snugly in the sensory table. The lips of the trays rested on the lips of the sensory tables; that held the two trays above the bottom of the sensory table which provided space underneath each tray for children to explore.  The children happily scooped sand from underneath the trays, often times crossing their midlines to do so.

I also built a very simple tray from scrap wood that spanned the width of the table.  Again, this offered spaces over, under and around for the children's chosen operations.

The tray in this instance also offered a platform on which the children could display their work.  Imagine if there was no tray.  The play in this instance would not have been so rich.

My first water table was also very simple.  Again, this was in an infant/toddler room so the water table was small. 

To make it more inviting for the children, I added a couple of incline PVC pipes, one emptying into the table from a bucket elevated by crates and one emptying into a bucket on the floor from the table.

I know and have observed that adding apparatus to the sensory table enriches and expands children's play and exploration  exponentially.  Give it a try, but keep it simple to begin with.  My journey started with very simple apparatus.  As I watched how children queried each new apparatus, I was able to hone my own craft for building.