Children learn through play. This is obvious to any early childhood educator.

The best way to

capitalize on this is through learning centers. Learning centers allow for the exploration and
freedom needed to qualify an activity as play, or playful at the very least. If a student is not given
choice, or the chance to supply their own meaning to the activity, it is not play. According to
Copple and Bredekamp, one of the many hallmarks of the developmentally appropriate
classroom is, an environment that encourages exploration, initiative, positive peer interaction,
and cognitive growth. (p.293). This contributes to teaching to enhance development and
learning. This can be achieved by the following: make centers a part of the daily schedule, have
choices of centers, and allow various group sizes in those centers. Centers are most effective
when the teacher is able to monitor student progress and help guide them through higher level
thinking. In learning centers, the teacher does not direct the flow of reasoning, rather they
challenge students to go further. One way I did this in the centers I implemented was to have
students make predictions in comparing fractions. Once the student had made a few observations
in comparing fractions I would ask them to predict a fraction that would larger or smaller than
the last one they examined.
I set up two centers to be used along with the existing math centers in my mentor teachers
classroom. The use of centers for math was not often done. The students were excited to
participate. Both of my centers were designed to operate independently. This was to ensure
students would still be able to complete the activities without supervision, if the teacher chose to
lead a small group during that time. The first center used a hands on approach for students to
manipulate and create their own model of fractions. This appeals to young students need for a
concrete example of a concept. This is especially important for concepts such as fractions. Many
students have difficulty visualizing how two thirds is bigger than two fourths. There previous

knowledge of number value works against them. This center could be used to evaluate the
standard: Compare two fractions with the same numerator or the same denominator by reasoning
about their size. Recognize that comparisons are valid only when the two fractions refer to the
same whole. Record the results of comparisons with the symbols >, =, or <, and justify the
conclusions, e.g., by using a visual fraction model. No formal assessment was done. However,
through observation and student conversation I feel the standard was met. The students enjoyed
filling the cups to varying amounts and finding new comparisons. I spoke with students as they
made predictions, tested, and recorded the results. The students placed their notes taken into their
math folders for personal use. Overall, every student who went through this center enjoyed it,
and seemed to take away a better understanding of the realities of comparing fractions. The only
change I would make is to have more cups available, so more students could participate.
The second center used self-correcting flash cards and tapped into the students competitive
nature. This is something the students in my placement clearly thrived on. During every day
routines and instruction, they frequently compete with one another. I chose self-correcting flash
cards for a few reasons. They were easy and cheap to produce. They appeal to tactile learners,
who are able to manipulate the puzzle pieces into the correct places. Once the template is made,
the flashcards can have any content written on them. This set appealed to the standard:
Recognize and generate simple equivalent fractions, e.g., 1/2 = 2/4, 4/6 = 2/3. Explain why the
fractions are equivalent, e.g., by using a visual fraction model. No formal assessment was done.
Through observation and student conversation, I feel the standard was met. The students visited
the center multiple times to race against different opponents. After two days of centers time
during math, several students had won at least one race. I initially planned for the center to be
used in teams or individually through use of timer. However, all students who visited the center

wanted to race against an opponent. The students challenged themselves to complete the cards
faster and faster each time.
I feel this center was successful, and will use it in my classroom. I feel part of the reason
both centers ran smoothly and were successful was due to my understanding of the importance of
hands on activities for young students. In both centers, the students were practicing academic
skills, but were not solving problems, copying from the board, or being graded on their success.
The students felt the freedom to be allowed mistakes, which made them a bit bolder in their
trials. Further, with the comparison activity the students were creating notes for their own use.
They were able to focus on the fractions that they did not understand. While this is not a pure
example of student giving their own meaning to the work, it is a step in that direction. The racing
game tapped into the students existing and intrinsic motivation to be first to finish. Every day
during fluency drills the students will proudly proclaim if they finished first. Students want to
feel successful. Giving them opportunities to be successful, practicing academic skills in a low
risk situation gives them the confidence to take more risk and work harder at other times.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood
Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.