Drawings, Gestures and Discourses: A Case Study with Kindergarten Students Discovering Lego Bricks

  • Benedetto Di Paola
  • Antonella Montone
  • Giuditta Ricciardiello


This chapter presents a study aimed at investigating the didactic potentiality of the use of an artefact, useful to construct mathematical meanings concerning the coordination of different points of view, in the observation of a real object/toy. In our view, the process of meaning construction can be fostered by the use of adequate artefacts, but it requires a teaching/learning model that explicitly takes care of the evolution of meanings, from those personal, emerging through the activities, to the mathematical ones, aims of the teaching intervention. The main hypothesis of this study is that the alternation between different semiotic systems, graphical system, verbal system and system of gestures can determine the evolution of the learning objectives that are the coordination of different points of view. The Theory of Semiotic Mediation offers the theoretical framework suitable to design the teaching sequence and to analyse the collected data. The study involved 15 Kindergarten students (5 or 6 years old), in which we asked children to represent a Lego block and discuss drawings observed from different points of view.


Semiotic systems 2-Dimensional and 3-dimensional representation Different points of view Artefact 


  1. Anning, A., & Ring, K. (2004). Making sense of children's drawings. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2008). Matematica: i numeri e lo spazio. Bergamo: Junior.Google Scholar
  4. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective (pp. 746–783). New York: Handbook of international research in mathematics education.Google Scholar
  5. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  6. Cherney, I. D., Seiwert, C. S., Dickey, T. M., & Flichtbeil, J. D. (2006). Children’s drawings: A mirror to their minds. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clements, D. H. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. Di Biase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics. Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 267–297). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Di Paola, B. (2016). Why Asian children outperform students from other countries? Linguistic and parental influences comparing Chinese and Italian children in Preschool education. IEJME-Mathematics Education, 11(9), 3351–3359.Google Scholar
  9. Di Paola, B., Battaglia, O. R., & Fazio, C. (2016). Non-hierarchical clustering as a method to analyse an open-ended questionnaire on algebraic thinking. South African Journal of Education, 36(1).
  10. Di Paola, B., & Montone, A. (2018). Mi descrivi il tuo disegno del Mattoncino Lego? Un’esperienza didattica di matematica nella scuola dell’infanzia. Didattica Della Matematica, 4, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duval, R. (1998). Signe et objet (I). Trois grandes étapes dans la problématique des rapports entre répresentations et objet. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 6, 139–163.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, L., & Robutti, O. (2014). Embodiment, modalities, and mathematical affordances. In L. Edwards, F. Ferrara, & D. Moore-Russo (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on gesture and embodiment in mathematics. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Faggiano, E., Montone, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2018). Synergy between manipulative and digital artefacts: a teaching experiment on axial symmetry at primary school. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(8), 1165–1180. Scholar
  14. Fandiño Pinilla, M. I. (2008). Molteplici aspetti dell’apprendimento della matematica. Trento: Erickson.Google Scholar
  15. Mellone, M., Ramploud, A., Di Paola, B., & Martignone, F. (2019). Cultural transposition: Italian didactic experiences inspired by Chinese and Russian perspectives on whole number arithmetic. ZDM, 51(1), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MIUR. (2012). Italian ministerial guidelines for the curriculum of the kindergarten school and the first cycle of education Roma. Retrieved from
  17. Montone, A., Faggiano, E., & Mariotti, M. (2017). The design of a teaching sequence on axial symmetry, involving a duo of artefacts and exploiting the synergy resulting from alternate use of these artefacts. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME10, February 1–5, 2017) (pp. 653–661). Dublin, Ireland: DCU Institute of Education and ERME.Google Scholar
  18. Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Gestures and multimodality in the construction of mathematical meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radford, L., Edwards, L., & Arzarello, F. (2009). Beyond words. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(3), 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benedetto Di Paola
    • 1
  • Antonella Montone
    • 2
  • Giuditta Ricciardiello
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Matematica e InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di MatematicaUniversità degli Studi di Bari Aldo MoroBariItaly
  3. 3.IC Balilla-ImbrianiBariItaly

Personalised recommendations