1. UNIVERSITA KARLOVA V PRAZE- ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI
APPLIED ACTIVITIES IN KINDERGARTEN
WITH THE THEME OF COGNITIVE OBJECT OF
MEASURES.
Practical Module of undergraduate students at Early
Childhood’s Education Department at Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
Maria Diamantopoulou
2/14/2014
The following work involves the cognitive area of Measure, for example height, comparison of
magnitudes, overlaps etc. And it is part of students’ Practical Module on 5th Semester at Early
Childhood’s Education School, department of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Responsible
for the structure of Practice Module and for the Mathematical activities, that take place in
Kindergarten, is Marianna Tzekaki Phd, professor of Faculty of Education, School of Early
Childhood’s Education department and this project is one part of her research on part of
“Mathematical activities in preschool and Elementary First School”.

2. The following work involves the cognitive area of Measure, for example height, comparison of
magnitudes, overlaps etc. And it is part of students’ Practical Module on 5th
Semester at Early
Childhood’s Education School, department of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Responsible
for the structure of Practice Module and for the Mathematical activities, that take place in
Kindergarten, is Marianna Tzekaki Phd, professor of Faculty of Education, School of Early
Childhood’s Education department and this project is one part of her research on part of
“Mathematical activities in preschool and Elementary First School”.
The following activities, which were performed in kindergarten, also the directions, the key
points and the whole planning was designed by Dr. Tzekaki.
Our responsibility, as students and future teachers of Education, was to find creative scenarios,
interesting enough to motivate children and keep their interest from the beginning till the end.
Another concern was the design of a simple interesting opening for the activity, where children
could understand what we were asking of them. The materials we used had to be suitable,
familiar and supportive for children. Last but not least, as teachers of Education reconsideration
is one of the most important facts of a successful teaching process.
The program took place in sort of 30 kindergartens, at Thessaloniki in 2012-2013 and the
following presentation took place in 13th
classic Kindergarten School, in Ampelokipoi, in
Thessaloniki.
The program
The following activities are part of cognitive object of Measures and we presented four of them
in kindergarten. Two of them were piloted and two the actual activities. The pilot activities were
designed to help both the teachers and the students. For teachers it was a great opportunity to
know their children’s specifics and to see how they can organize the teaching part in an actual
classroom. For children, it was more important because, the ‘’new teachers’’ and the part of
measures were, maybe, unfamiliar to them.
General for the activities
 Kindergarten School: 13th
Classic kindergarten in Ampelokipoi in Thessaloniki.
 Children: 21 (12 boys and 9 girls), but we worked with 18 (10 boys and 8 girls)
 Children specifics: 3 boys were visiting speech therapy specialist.
 Teaching methods: Team work, observation and experiential learning
For all activities we divided children in 3 groups of 6 but at the closing of the activities they
would work individually. We tried to divide the groups according to all children’s
capabilities. One student was in charge of each group. The plan was to start with a simple
introduction and with search queries they could end up with a solution. We didn’t interrupt
their way of thinking, we didn’t show them the solution, we didn’t correct their mistakes at

3. all, but through our questions we tried to get the right answer. Our job was to supervise,
support, observe and guide children, only with search queries in case, they were at a dead
end and take advantage of the good ideas. The duration of each activity was approximately
25 minutes, in which the first 5 was the introduction, the 15 the main activity and the last 5
the closing.
 Materials we used: Cartons (in various colors), basket with metric hardware (ribbons,
markers, scissors, glue, staples), macaroni.
We were free to use whichever materials, could be helpful for us but we couldn’t state to
them which ones they had to use.
All kinds of materials were placed at obvious positions all- over the classroom.
 Goals:
 To perceive metric characteristics of objects and situations using specific
description.
 To do direct or indirect comparison, when the first is not possible, using
non compatible tools.
 To finish these activities having an overall approach of measurement
techniques and conventional means.
 Questions for rethinking, error response, research:
 Questions for starting: “So tell me your ideas..” , “How can we start?”, “Do
you think there is another way to start?”, “What do you think …?” (this
question is very good when a student has a good idea) “Do you agree
with…?” “Why?”,
 Questions in case of mistakes: “Do you think there are other solutions to
the problem that we didn’t think of?”, “Are you sure about it?”, “What
makes you think that this is correct?”, “Can you explain to me why do you
think that is correct?”
 Rethinking questions: “What are you going to tell your friends/parents, you
did today?”, “Which were the steps to solve this problem?”, “If you had to
start all over what you would have done differently?
 Key points:
 Creative scenario, but at the same time simple, small and not excessive.
 Scenarios and materials which were used, should be familiar for
children, inspired from their daily routine.
 Children, who are working as groups without teacher’s help, as
independent observers.
 Don’t show the solutions to children, only guide them with suitable
questions.
 We try to use words from the new vocabulary (mathematical
terminology) (f.e. compare, length, equal length etc.)

4.  The Closing of the activity is important because we can understand if
the activity was effective and comprehensible for children.
 Feedback is the key for education teachers, for a successful teaching
process.
1st
Pilot Activity: “Who “goes up” higher?”
Mathematical action: perceivability of magnitude of height, comparison of length, direct
comparison of a familiar situation and transportation to a 3rd
mean.
Action: children had to stretch their hand and realize on their own, who could reach higher.
Scenario: A boy named Bruno tries to reach the jar of cookies, which his mother placed at a high
shelf in the kitchen. You have to find a way to figure out of, which you can reach the highest, so
he/she can help Bruno reach the jar.
Process: one girl of first team had the idea of how they could begin. Then all of the children
copied the idea. They used the white cardboard papers, which were placed on the walls and the
markers to mark their hands. Each child went over to the cardboard paper, which were reached
their hand and with the other hand marked the height.
Notifications: children made their own rules for the game. For example they realized that it is
wrong to use a chair or stand up on tiptoes, so they could reach higher.
Feedback: the activity ended up quickly and successfully, but the scenario detuned the children
and they lost the goal, because at the end of the activity they were just asking for the cookies.

5. 2nd
Pilot Activity: “Who has the longest arm?”
Mathematical action: comparison of length with intermediate, indirect comparison of similar
magnitudes, approach of the transportation of length and ability of explanation (with the
propose of explain).
Action: children had to find a way to compare the length of their arms (from solders till the tips
of their fingers) with a non-compatible mean.
Scenario: a skeleton named Dino had no hands. Dino was a skeleton made of different kinds of
macaroni, glued on a cardboard paper. The motivation that, whichever child has the longest arm
would make-construct Dino’s arms.
Process: the same girl found the way of beginning this activity too. She used a ribbon and
scissors and she measured her hand. Another child from her team and also from the other
teams followed her. Then, they took the ribbons and they compared all of them as teams, to see
which was the longest.
Notifications: we weren’t able to finish this activity and let children rethink it. That happened
because there was no time (the activity started at 11:45 and children finished school at 12:00),
children were exhausted, tense and unfocused because they had already done too many
activities during the day. Some children had a “fight” with ribbons using them as weapons. We
tried with the right questions to keep their attention and guide them correctly, but we failed
and we stopped the activity.
Feedback: we weren’t satisfied with our effort on this activity but we weren’t able to repeat it
again.

6. 3rd
Activity: “I know how much more needed to…”
Mathematical action: comparison of magnitudes, equality, sum of magnitudes.
Action: this is a speed game, where children are divided into teams and having a length-pattern,
they can combine length-pairs, such as look-alikes with the length-pattern. We can use
whichever material we want to play this game.
Scenario: a train crash happened and only 3 trains were saved. Our job is to reconnect the trains
using the train-patterns as a guide, so they can look like before.
Process: children tried to find the right pieces to reconstruct the train and they found the idea of
taking the pieces and replacing them next to the train-pattern, so they can see if it is correct. At
the closing of the activity we received good answers, i.e. children were able to describe the way
of their work, but we received answers only from children, who gave the ideas at the beginning.
Notifications: some children weren’t able to follow the process of the activity and they just tried
to copy other children.
Feedback: we realized that the way we designed the train-patterns and the train-pieces and the
variety of colors were very confusing for children and we should have done it simpler. They were
able to finish the activity, but it took longer and they needed to be pushed.
4th
Activity: “I know where more of them fit..”
Mathematical action: equality, comparison of magnitudes and overlaps, length overlapping,
assessment of magnitudes and “measure”.

7. Action: children compare magnitudes (lengths, heights, and distances which can’t compare
directly etc.) at first only visually. Then we ask for their opinion, in which distance is longer and
more intermediates can fit. Finally they can verify if they are correct by trying to fit the overlaps.
Scenario: we have two different types and colors of snakes and we are trying to see, which one
of them is longer. The snakes are painted on big cardboard papers, the first is a straight line and
the second a zig zag.
Process: this activity was more successful than the others because each team used different
materials to measure. The first used markers, the second scissors and the third ribbons. Only
one team had a few difficulties but they got over them quickly.
Closing: after the closing of the activity we realized that children responded positively at this
activity, they all ended up with the same result and we received good answers at
reconsideration questions.
Feedback: we discussed that we would use a different scenario and we would try to use the
suitable vocabulary more. Also our introduction was poor and we would like to change it.
Conclusion
After I materialized this program at kindergarten, I realized how simple it is to set the proper
foundations for the teaching of mathematics at kindergarten without children realizing that they
learn through that, just playing. I presented these activities last year at kindergarten and this
year when I read it and prepared this presentation, I recognized the mistakes I made during the
teaching process, with the motivations I gave to children, the poor designed scenarios and all
the things I could do differently, for children’s benefit. That makes me feel more capable and

8. mature, ready to learn new methods of creative teaching of mathematics and apply them at a
school classroom.
To end up I would like to thank Dr. Darina Jirotková and Dr. Michaela Kaslová and the
Mathematic department of Charles University for the opportunity they gave me. I would also
like to thank Dr Marianna Tzekaki, Dr Sapfo Tampaki and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
because they’re responsible for my participation at Erasmus LLP program and finally I would like
to thank all of you for your attention and your understanding. Of course a very big thank you to
your hospitable country and the unique experiences I have gained which will follow me in all my
future years. Don't be surprised if I decide to come back...