A Vygotskian Framework for
Observing and Teaching Bilingualand English-Only Players•
Lynn Cohen

The author argues that play always occurs within a social context and in relation to the various cultures that coexist within the classroom and the school
setting. She uses Vygotsky’s definition of play as dramatic or make-believe
play for preschool children, and she applies Vygotskian and post-Vygotskian
theories, including Daniil Elkonin’s categories of play, to examine mature andimmature play among preschool children. She describes case studies of duallanguage learners (DLLs) and English-only (EO) preschoolers (who needmore time and scaffolding to acquire mature, make-believe play) along withthose of reluctant players. She also promotes Bodrova and Leong’s observation and assessment measure, PRoPELS, for teachers and researchers seeking
to help children reach a mature level of play in early childhood classrooms.
She concludes with suggestions for supporting such mature play. Key words:
dual-language learners; make-believe play; PRoPELS; scaffolding

My purpose is to discuss children in preschool classrooms who need

opportunities for scaffolded make-believe play. The story features young, dual
language learners (DLLs) and English-only (EO) preschoolers who are developing the language, social and emotional, independence, and self-esteem skills
to interact with peers in play centers. This proves especially important because,in the last two decades, early childhood classrooms have become more diverse.
According to the United States Department of Education (2020), young children
who speak a language other than English have increased 28 percent nationwide.
Multilingual young children need opportunities to engage in mature scaffolded
play in early childhood classrooms.
There exists a paucity of research that has examined the play and social
interactions of DLLs in predominately English-speaking preschool classrooms(Halle et al. 2014). Some have proposed that sociodramatic play with peers
333

American Journal of Play, volume 15, number 3 © 2023 by The Strong
Contact Lynn Cohen at Lynn.Cohen@liu.edu

334

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

offers a potentially important context for the social interactions of DLLs, theirlanguage development, and their self-regulation and that such play contributes
significantly to their second-language learning (Schmerse 2021).
A sociocultural perspective guides my argument about mature play, a perspective that allows us to understand the relationship between young bilingual
learners and their social contexts, which is mediated by their broad repertoire of
linguistic and cultural resources. Vygotsky (1967, 1978) and Elkonin (2005) characterized sociodramatic play as an event that helped propel children’s development as they created imaginary situations, adopted and acted out roles, andfollowed the rules determined by these roles. My study begins with a discussion
about make-believe play and the Vygotskian approach, followed by a consideration of Elkonin’s (2005) view on make-believe play in the preschool and kindergarten years. For my purposes, I will use Bodrova and Leong’s (2007) term
“mature play,” although Vygotsky (1978) and his students (Elkonin 2005, 1999b)
actually used the term “developed play.” Next, I assess examples of preschoolers
playing in the sociodramatic play center using PRoPELS to scaffold mature play
(Leong and Bodrova 2012). I conclude with suggestions classroom teachers canuse to support mature play in early childhood settings.
For the study presented in this article, I examined video examples of children’s level of mature play in a dramatic play center using a rubric based on
Elkonin’s levels of developed play. I collected data when working in a preschoolclassroom, and I designed the video examples to allow the investigation of theresearch question: In what ways do four-year-old children in preschool classrooms engage in mature play?

Understanding Preschool Play with
Dual-Language and English-Only Players
Play is universal and has no cultural boundaries. DLLs playing alongside EO
preschoolers contributes to the early learning and language development of
DLLs (Espinosa 2015). Play supports language growth for both DLL and EO
preschoolers. There is no reason that children have to speak the same language
to engage in role play. DLLs communicate through body language, facial expressions, and gestures. They engage in meaning making during play through verbal,
visual, and actionable modes of communication. Researchers (Alanis, Arrequin,and Salinas-González 2021; Garcia and Wei 2014) have examined preschoolVygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

children’s gestures during play and storytelling. These children point, nod, andact out words with their hands to inform other players of their actions during
dramatic play.
Play provides a space for DLLs to explore and take risks with English as
they play alongside EO peers. Gestures play an important role in accessing language in the process of speech production. DLLs learn to use various strategies
to communicate and interact with EO peers (Arreguín-Anderson et al. 2018),
which may include gestures or observing others play, before entering the play
episode of the EO peers.
It is important for early childhood programs to provide hands-on, dramatic-play experiences that explore the structure of language in authentic ways.
Teachers should understand the various ways DLLs play with EO peers becausesuch understanding helps them scaffold and support children’s daily play while
enhancing the students’ language, vocabulary, and development of mature play.
In the next section, I outline Elkonin’s (1999b, 2005) views about the development of play for preschoolers.

Views of Make-Believe PlayIn the 1970s, Western researchers began to adopt the social-cognitive aspects of
Vygotsky’s work following the translation of Mind and Society (1978). Althoughmuch of American research has since applied a Vygotskian framework to theareas of psychology and education, few researchers have examined play froma Vygotskian framework to the extent that Bodrova and Leong did in Tools of
the Mind (2007).
For Vygotsky a distinction exists between play and instructional interactions. Play and interactions with teachers and peers both contribute todevelopment and create the zone of proximal development (ZPD) for children (Vygotsky 1967, 1978). According to Vygotskian theory, play constitutes
a leading activity for preschoolers and children up to seven years, one inwhich adults assume a supporting role. Vygotskians focus on pretend play or
make-believe play. Make-believe play helps preschool children develop higher
mental functions by promoting planning and self-regulation, roles with rules,
symbolic thinking, language, and literacy. For DLLs, play provides numerous cognitive, metacognitive, metalinguistic, and sociolinguistic advantages(Genesse et al. 2021).

335

336

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYA close colleague of Vygotsky, Daniil Elkonin, is known among educators for his Elkonin boxes used in reading recovery and his work on phonemic
awareness, but he also elaborated Vygotskian theories and promoted the idea ofa developed form of play. According to Elkonin (1999b, 2005), developed playdoes not emerge overnight, and it tends to reach its highest level of developmentin the preschool years if carefully scaffolded and taught.
From a cultural-historical perspective, Vercellino and Moreira (2023)
discuss the progression of play and Elkonin’s (1999b) categories of play. They
describe Elkonin’s analysis based on four categories of play: “(1) the maincontent of the activity, (2) the presence of roles and their properties, (3) theactions and their logic, and (4) the rules” (Vercellino and Moreira 2023, 3).
Elkonin (1999b) examines the progression of play based on two large groups.
The first group consists of levels 1 and 2, and it is considered immature play.
Children explore objects and props in the dramatic play center, and they learn
to use words or phrases to label objects. Each child determines his or her own
role. These actions have no name and are “monotonous and repetitive actions”
that go on “for a long time, and at the same time, demonstrate[e]” that thoseengaged in them have “no interest in what a neighboring child is playing withand how” (Elkonin 1999b, 32). For example, a child pretends to go shoppingin a grocery store and says, “What should we buy?” But the roles of cashier,customer, and manager are not established. The child pushes a plastic shopping cart in the pretend grocery store and repetitively puts food items into
the shopping cart without any interaction with other players. There is little
conversation between the players. At level 1 and level 2, the play is short lived,and children often switch to other activities.
The second group of Elkonin’s progression of play consists of levels 3 and4, and it is considered a more advanced play (Vercellino and Moreira 2023).
Children socially interact to plan roles and establish rules for carrying out thepretend roles. They perform these roles with other children and use words andactions to plan play scenarios that last for an extended time. For example, one
child might be a customer pretending to buy groceries and placing them ina shopping cart as another pretends to stock the shelves with groceries and athird plays the cashier scanning and bagging the groceries.
The players invariably identified these roles aloud to other participantsin the play. For example, Abby might say to Peter, “You’re the cashier, and I’llbe the girl shopping.” This implies Abby must act in a specific way, one different
from Peter. Abby must act like a supermarket customer. In these cases, children

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teachingoften used the phrases “let’s pretend!” and “make-believe!” (Bodrova and Leong
2006). The players negotiate the roles and may stay in the role for fifteen minutes
or longer. Children may also start to narrate themes from familiar stories. At
this level of Elkonin’s progression of play, children are usually five years old, andthey are able to pretend and to use complex language in their role. Often, they
do not need a prop to stay in the roles.
Leong and Bodrova (2012) took the approaches of Vygotsky (1978) andElkonin (2005) and analyzed play in five phases that include the plans, the roles,
the props, an extended time frame, and language. “Play that exists in many of
today’s classrooms does not fit the definition of mature play” writes Bodrova(2008, 364). She suggests that adults intentionally use scaffolding to support thisFigure 1. Five Stages in Make Believe Play. Reprinted with permission from Leong, DeborahJ., and Elena Bodrova. 2012 “Assessing and Scaffolding Make-Believe Play,” in Young Children
67:30.

337

338

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

make-believe play. And indeed, to help teachers develop higher levels of play,
Leong and Bodrova (2012) developed PRoPELS as a tool to assess and scaffold
the most critical elements of children’s play.

PRoPELS—Assessing Mature Make-Believe Play
PRoPELS is an assessment that helps teachers support higher levels of play from
Elkonin’s (1999b, 2005) four categories of play to Leong and Bodrova’s (2012) six
categories of play. Teachers can use PRoPELS to watch children in the dramatic
play area and identify a preschool child’s level of play. As I mentioned, ProPELS
is an acronym that addresses the following “dimensions”: plan, roles, props,
extended time, language, and scenario (figure 1). I can now offer a descriptionof each dimension that relates to intentional mature play.
Planning
In this dimension, teachers encourage children to think about play before entering a dramatic play center. They ask the children what they want to play or what
they want to be to encourage them to think about their role and to prevent arguments. During a restaurant play theme, for example, two children might bothwant to be the cashier. In this planning stage, children identify a role and talkabout what they will do. Some children draw a picture of themselves in the rolewith an object or a prop to help them remember what they will do. For DLLs,
teachers may show pictures of the play roles or say to children in their homelanguage something like, “Señale la imagen del papel que desea representar”(“Point to the picture of the role you want to play”).
Roles
In this dimension, we need to keep in mind that, according to Elkonin (1999a,
1999b), mature play reflects the social relationships that exist in the real world.
A mother calls a doctor when her baby is sick, and the roles of mother, baby,
and doctor are enacted. These roles have rules, as when the doctor asks themother questions about the baby. As Leong and Bodrova (2012) point out,
“Teachers need to explain the purpose of the behaviors, their sequence, andcause and effect relationships between behaviors” (32). Thus, playing a sickbaby is a real-life situation and calls for teachers to model the roles and rulesof the narrative.

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

Props and Objects
In the props and objects dimension, children need to be able to use real, symbolic, and imaginary props. Some props support the role, reminding children
which role they are playing. Without the prop, children can—in the midst ofplay—forget who they are. Although children need props, these props can be
minimal and symbolic. Children can begin to make props if they are not available, but the players do not need props to stay in their roles. Sometimes props areneeded to act out the scenario. A child role playing a mother can, for example,
use a stuffed animal for her baby and a block as a telephone to call the doctor.
Such objects can be the actors in the play scenario.
Extended Time Frame
For this dimension, children may keep the play going for sixty minutes or longer without teacher intervention. They may also sustain play from one day to
the next, but they will need teacher support to do so. The decision to continue
happens during the mature stage of play.
LanguageThis dimension comes into play when role speech emerges and proves important in classrooms of DLLs and EO preschoolers. It can involve intonation andgestures, for example, when a pretend baby talks like a baby or a pretend cookuses a voice intonation appropriate for a cook. Adults need to use vocabulary,sentence structures, and intonations that fit the roles children play. Teachers
sometimes need to join in the play alongside the children to support DLLs’
language acquisition. Teachers can also assign an EO child to play with DLLs
to model vocabulary and role speech.
ScenarioIn this dimension, children play scripts related to the theme of the dramatic play.
The scripts have several sequential actions that children coordinate with otherplayers. For example, a child who plays the store manager walks over to the one
playing cashier, opens the cash register, and waits for the cashier to pretend tocount the money. DLLs can use gestures and props to create scenarios when
paired with EO children. Children use background knowledge from personal
experience to include in the scripts. The more mature the play, the more often the
scenario involves a social problem that the players have to solve. For example, a
mom brings her sick baby into the doctor’s office but there are no appointments

339

340

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYfor that day; or a customer orders a hamburger, but no hamburgers are being
served, only chicken nuggets.
According to Elkonin (1999b, 2005), play starts with object play and adultmodeling for two-and three-year olds and gradually evolves into fully developed play. As a leading activity for preschool children, play provides the mostimportant context for the emergence and continued growth of important cognitive and social processes. As a result, play also prepares children for acquiring
academic skills in elementary school. But play, once a daily activity in all earlychildhood classrooms, has been eliminated in most elementary public schools,
and a trend presently exists to eliminate it in preschool settings (Nicolopoulou2010). A push also exists to teach advanced skills to children at very young ages
so they will be academically primed by the time they attend elementary school.
Thus, preschool classrooms have limited opportunities for make-believe playand other play-based activities.
A study by Manuilenko (1975) compared the ability of preschoolers tofollow directions in both play and nonplay settings. In Russia, children are considered preschoolers until age seven, so Manuilenko tested three- to five-year
olds and seven-year olds and found that the older preschoolers benefitted morewhen the task was presented in a play format. Smirnova and Gudareva (2017)
conducted a study of play and games to examine play activities of preschoolers. They observed the narrative role play of eighty-nine children and the levelsof their development in Russian kindergartens. “The children observed weredivided into three preschool age groups: a younger one (four to five years old);
an older one (five to six); and a preparatory one (six to seven)” (259). They
found the highest level of development, which they described as relation-based
play, among the six-year-old to-seven-year-old preschool children. The results
indicated that a small percentage of children reach a developed state of play after
age six, confirming both Elkonin’s (1999b) and Manuilenko’s (1975) findings.
Low-level play may also result from a lack of time given to play. Children
need time to engage in long periods of uninterrupted play (Murphy 2020).
Dramatic play requires considerable time to plan and initiate in order to recruit
players, negotiate roles, and agree on a story or theme (Christie and Wardle
1992). But many state-funded prekindergarten programs offer only half-daysin the morning or afternoon and do not allow an hour for play. Our study
focused on the development of play in a prekindergarten classroom with DLL
and EO children using Leong and Bodrova’s (2012) PRoPEL’s assessment forclassroom teachers.

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

Methodology
To answer my research question, I reviewed two classroom video tapes and transcripts from a preschool classroom to assess mature preschool play. I assessedindividual children using PRoPEL and assigned a stage of make-believe playusing Elkonin’s categories (1999b, 2005) of developed and undeveloped play.
Subjects
I obtained parental permission to video tape children and collect data for future
research. I observed the naturally occurring sociodramatic play of eight children
and video taped them on two different days during the school year. The children’s
ages ranged from forty-eight months to sixty-one months. Five of the children werefemale; three were male. The children spoke Spanish at home, except for two who
spoke English. The language of instruction in the classroom was English. The leadteacher and teaching assistant were both female, and both held bachelor’s degrees
in early childhood education. The teaching assistant was bilingual.
Setting
The classroom was equipped with standard preschool furniture and toys, suchas dolls, trucks, dress-up clothes, and plastic pretend food, which are all condu________________________________________________________________________
Name

GenderEthnicity

English Proficiency

Spanish Proficiency________________________________________________________________________
Aiden

Male

African AmericanE

Not tested

Anthony

Male

Hispanic

D

E

AshleyFemaleHispanic

D

E

Brittany

FemaleHispanic

C

D

Emma

FemaleAfrican AmericanE

Not tested

Eva

FemaleHispanic

C

C

Joyce

FemaleHispanic

C

C

Mario

Male

Hispanic

DE_________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2. Participants: Ethnicity and Language Proficiency Levels

341

342

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

cive to dramatic play. The classroom was a state-funded, universal preschool
program in a low income, ethnically diverse district. The classrooms offeredmonthly themes (e.g. restaurant, farm, and bakery) for play activities. The
teacher would ask each child to choose a role, and the children planned forthe roles (e.g. customer, cashier, host, or other) they chose each day prior
to entering the dramatic play center. They would need to say what role they
were going to play and what they planned to do playing that role in the center.
Each player wore a tag with role pictures, labeled in English and Spanish, tosupport self-regulation.
Procedure
As the researcher, I maintained a weekly presence in the classroom throughout
the school year. To begin, I obtained language proficiency levels for DLLs andEO children. Next, I collected themed dramatic play video episodes using the
PRoPELS measure to examine mature play (See figure 1).
Pre-IPT Oral English and Spanish Tests
Espinosa (2014) recommends assessing the language proficiency of DLLs inboth English and Spanish to obtain proficiency levels. In my study, I assessedlanguage proficiency using the Pre-Idea Proficiency Test (Pre-IPT) in English
and Spanish. The test reports the test-retest reliability of .77 and criterion validity
to be between .62 and .67 (Ballad and Tighe 2010).
To complete an assessment, an examiner uses a storyboard and felt pieces
to encourage children to respond to questions and point to appropriate items on
the storyboard. Levels A and B test children’s understanding of simple vocabulary items (father, mother, boy, girl, shoes, dog). For Levels C and D, children
respond to lengthier and more syntactically complex questions and indicate theirability to name three colors. The most difficult item, in Level E, asks a child toconstruct and retell facts from the story.
Children are assigned a level from A to E based on raw scores that range
from zero to forty and age norms. Scores are converted to standard scores andpercentiles. The standard scores are used in the designation of three-year-old
children to five-year-old children as Non-English Speaking (NES) (Level A andB), Limited English Speaking (LES) (Levels C and D), or Fluent English Speaking (FES) (Level E).
The age norms for children ages four years to five years are Levels A, a NonEnglish speaker; Levels B and C indicate a Limited English-speaker (LES); andVygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

Level D and E designate a Fluent English speaker (FES). (See results in figure2). In my study, three children scored as limited English proficiency.
PRoPELS
We coded the two video cases according to Leong and Bodrova’s PRoPELS (figure 1). Leong and Bodrova (2012) suggested teachers “first observe children’s
play without intervening and after assessing the level of children’s independent
play, decide on what kind of scaffolding would be most appropriate” (31).

Analysis of Video Tapes Using PRoPELS
A bilingual classroom teacher transcribed the play sessions. Some of the children
spoke Spanish as they played and interacted with peers during make-believe
play sessions. Next, a second researcher viewed and rated the video tapes. The
video tapes and transcripts helped us identify and code mature play behaviors
using the PRoPELS—specifically planning, roles, props, extended time, language,
and scenario. Both researchers scored the quality of mature play for the twoclassrooms, using as the unit of analysis a continuous observation. Interrater
reliability between the two yielded 85 percent agreement. In the first example,
four girls play in a grocery store. In the second example, three boys and one girltake on the roles of restaurant workers.
Example 1: Playing in the Grocery Store
The sociodramatic play center was set up as a supermarket. Ashley, Eva, Brittany, and Joyce (pseudonyms), all of them Spanish and English speakers,
played in the center for a little more than ten minutes before the teacher had
the class clean up. Props included realistic food items, a cash register with ascanner, plastic shopping carts, dolls, purses, play money, and a teacher-made,shopping-list form. The shopping list lay on a separate table with pencils next
to it. Additionally, signs and pictures relating to supermarkets were posted
around the center.
The four girls pretend to be customers. The video begins with Joyce pushing her baby in a shopping cart and taking food containers off the shelf. Brittany sits at the table writing her shopping list on the provided form. Brittany
leaves the table. Using a block as a pretend microphone, Brittany begins tosing. Eva pretends to hold a baby and collects food containers. Ashley scans a

343

344

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYbasket full of groceries. Eva reprimands Ashley, “Vamos! You’re not going toshop forever!” Ashley looks at Eva and begins to scan her groceries. Ashley
forgets to scan a tomato that Eva places on the pretend conveyor belt. Eva says,“Olvidaste esto! (You forgot this), and she points to the tomato. Eva takes thescanner from Ashley and scans her own tomato. Ashley reaches for the scanner, but Eva pulls it away. Joyce stays in her role of customer, shopping andplacing items in the shopping cart. Eva takes on the role of cashier, scanning
Ashley’s grocery items. Brittany returns to the scene. Brittany tells Ashley,“We’re the boss. We’re the boss!” Brittany gets a shopping basket and takes on
the role of customer. Brittany wants to use Joyce’s shopping cart rather thana basket, and the two argue about the shopping cart. Joyce and Brittany give
grocery items to Eva to scan. Their groceries fall when Eva shuts down the
cash register. The three girls argue, but they settle the dispute when Brittanyasks Eva to shop. Brittany says, “Let’s shop.” Eva responds, “I will shop withyou, I’m the mom, okay?” Brittany responds, “No! I’m the mom!” Eva thenresponds, “I’m the sister. Okay?” Eva and Brittany take on the roles of motherand sister, shopping. Joyce and Ashley continue shopping. The episode ends
when the teacher rings a bell for the children to clean up.
With respect to the plan dimension, the children planned before going to
the pretend supermarket center but only for two roles, cashier and customer.
Interactions in the role dimension related to associative play, and—after arguing—Britanny and Eva decided to take on the customer roles of mother andsister. The roles of manager and stock clerk were not enacted. The actions of all
players were repetitive. They took grocery props off the shelf and put them in
shopping baskets or picked up a grocery prop and used the scanner.
In the prop dimension, we observed children using realistic props for theentire session. They shared these props, although at one point Brittany and Joyce
argued about the shopping cart. The one exception in such sharing came when
Brittany used a block for a pretend microphone to sing.
As for the length dimension, Ashley, Eva, and Joyce remained in the dramatic play center for ten minutes. During this time, Brittany played alone in the
background writing and singing, left the area, and then returned to the center
after four minutes.
In relation to the language dimension, all players put grocery items in the
shopping cart and scanned items without naming the role or verbally describing an action connected to shopping in a supermarket. With respect to the useof language during the episode, there were twenty-five utterances in English

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teachingand eight utterances in Spanish with no evidence of role speech. Ashley did not
respond to Brittany or Eva, but when addressed, she used gestures and repetitive actions in her role as customer. Tags (Cohen and Uhry 2007; Corsaro 1986)
such as “okay” or “oh” came at the end of a turn of talk to elicit a response or an
acknowledgment to another player.
And for the scenario, the scripts were composed of limited actions. The
players acted out their roles separately and not with each other. The scripts werecomposed of actions such as scanning the food items or putting the grocery itemsin the shopping cart. The children were familiar with these scripts and did not
add any new scenes related to shopping in a supermarket.
Example 2: Playing in a Restaurant
The dramatic play theme involved a three-minute episode in a pretend restaurant, three boys—Aiden, Anthony, and Mario—and one girl, Emma, as theplayers. Aiden and Emma were English speakers, and Mario and Anthony were
Spanish and English speakers. The props were realistic food items, plastic dishes,a toy mixer, a telephone, and a baby doll. Teacher props included menus withpictures of food items in English and Spanish and a paper chef hat. A shoebox with the lid closed represented a pretend computer. The furniture included
a refrigerator, a sink, a stove, a cabinet to store food, a table and chairs, anda table with a telephone for the order taker. The furniture had English andSpanish signs (e.g., oven/horno, sink/pileta). The children had planned theirroles before entering the restaurant: Emma to play a waitress; Aiden to play acustomer; Anthony to play chef, and Mario to play the order taker. Anthony
stands in the kitchen center pretending to prepare food (role of chef). Emma
pretends to put something in the microwave and runs back and forth behindhim (role of waitress). Mario pretends to takes orders (role of order taker).
Emma pretends to put pizza on a plate for Aiden (role of customer). Anthony
gives Aiden chicken and squirts it with ketchup and mustard (switches role ofchef to role of waiter). Aiden pretends to cut his pizza and takes the tray of pizza
from the oven and puts an extra slice on his plate (switches role from customer
to chef). Emma says, “Aiden, I didn’t want you to do that!” Anthony continues
to put food on Aiden’s plate. Mario is on the phone taking orders. Emma takes
a banana from the shelf and puts it in the microwave. Emma says, “Here’s abanana! Watch this! I’m putting in the banana!” (Emma puts the banana in thepretend microwave). Emma puts the banana on the table and takes the empty
plate on the stove. Aiden shakes a hamburger patty and puts it on the table.

345

346

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Anthony smiles at Aiden. Anthony takes a carrot out of the cabinet and puts iton the table. Aiden puts his tray of pizza on the table and picks up the carrot.
Aiden’s plate now has a carrot, a banana, an avocado, grapes, and a hamburger
patty (switches role of chef back to customer). Mario says: “I want to eat. I wantto eat.” Mario leaves his pretend computer station and sits down next to Aiden
with the pizza and carrot (Mario switches role from order taker to customer).
Mario to Anthony: “I want to eat this” (Mario holds up the carrot). Aiden goesto the pretend computer station and takes phone orders (Aiden switches rolefrom customer to order taker). Ten minutes into the play episode, Mario changes
roles and goes back to the role of order taker.
This short scenario illustrated how the children played for the entire twenty
minutes allotted for classroom dramatic play. Although the children planned
their roles (planning dimension), they engaged only in short episodes of repetitive play and could not stay in their role (roles dimension) longer than three orfour minutes. The children’s intermittent concentration and lack of persistence inmaintaining the story and roles of restaurant workers became evident during theobservation. They acted out their roles separately. Anthony planned the role of chef
during play planning and wore the chef hat for the entire time allocated for restaurant play, but he changed roles from chef to waiter several times. There appeared
to be no rules established with the roles played in the dramatic play restaurant.
Children used realistic props (e.g., plastic food items, plastic dishes, andutensils) during most of their play (props dimension). The teacher created apaper chef hat and menus. Children taking on the roles of customers and servers
used the teacher-created menus at the end of the episode during one observation.
The children could not maintain a role for longer than three to four minutes before moving on to another role or a nonplay activity (length dimension).
Mario and Aiden left the dramatic play area and wandered into another center.
The two bilingual speakers did not use their home language and often
responded in English (language dimension). Anthony frequently used gestures(e.g., smiles and head shakes in response to questions), one-word utterances,and many paralinguistic cues. The children were able to play together, but they
did not share common goals related to the roles and rules of restaurant workers.
Thus the dimension of associative play dominated the episode.
The children did not create a script of actions typically performed as restaurant workers (scenario dimension). The scripts had limited actions and were
not well coordinated between players. The waitress asked the customer, “Whatdo you want today?” She then would take the order to the cook to prepare.

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

Results and Discussion
Two classroom video examples indicated that the children were not engaged
in mature play. For the most part, they used realistic props, did not engage in______________________________________________________________________________
Play Stages

Child’s Name

Make Believe Play Stage 1 - First Scripts
Plan- No planning during play
ROle – No roles
Prop – Plays with objects as object
Length - Explores objects but no play
Language – Little language
Scenario – Does not create a scenario
Make Believe Play Stage 2 – Roles in Action
Plan – No planning during play
ROle – Acts first then decides on role, no rules
Prop – Plays with objects as props
Action with prop results in a role – May argue
Length – Scenario lasts a few minutes
Language - Describes actions
Scenario – Stereotypical with limited behaviors
Make Believe Play Stage 3 – Roles with Rules and
Beginning Scenarios
Plan – Names roles and actions prior to playing
ROle – Role has rules that can be violated
Prop – Prop chosen for the role
Length – 10 -15 minutes
Language – Describes roles and actions
Scenario - Play familiar scripts fully
Make Believe Play Stage 4 – Mature Roles, Planned
Scenarios & Symbolic Props
Plan – Each Scenario is planned in advanced
Role – Complex, multiple roles
Prop – Symbolic and pretend props- May argue
Length – 60 minutes or longer
Language - Use role speech, describes unfolding scenario,
roles, & actions
Scenario – Series of coordinated scenarios that change in
response to previous ones or desires of players
Make Believe Play Stage 5 – Kindergarten –Dramatization, Multiple Themes, Roles, & Director’s
Play
Plan – Elaborate themes, scenarios and complex roles.
Spends time planning
Roles – Can play more than one role
Prop – Can pretend rather than actually have a prop. Does notneed a prop
Length – Last all day or over several days
Language – Uses language to delineate the scenario, roles,
and action. Book language is incorporated into role speech
Scenarios – Plays a series of coordinated scenarios. Uses
themes from stories and literature. Emotions and problems
are worked out and solved in different ways

Figure 3. PRoPELS - Child Observations of Mature Play Stages for Preschool Children

347

348

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYany play scenarios, and participated primarily in associative play. Some of thechildren managed to stay in their roles and maintain the rules of these roles. Fora few players, their language and gestures did relate to role speech.
PRoPELS, as I have stated, is an assessment to help teachers support higher
levels of play using Leong and Bodrova’s (2012) levels from most immature tomature play. Our study investigated the use of PRoPELS to evaluate dramatic
play episodes in preschool classrooms with DLLs and EO preschoolers. Many of
the DLLs had acquired some English proficiency (see figure 2). The two examples
underscore the worry that children’s classroom dramatic play in the preschool
year may no longer be at a level of complexity that supports learning (Smirnova
2013; Smirnova and Guadereva 2017; Vercellino and Moreira 2023). The level ofinvolvement of the children we observed in the video tapes evidenced a relianceon realistic props, the use of repetitious story lines, a broken attention within theplay episode, and a fragmented enactment of roles. By the time children reachkindergarten, they should be engaging in a developed level of make-believe play
(Elkonin 1999b, 2005). Elkonin (2005) used the term developed to describe
play that provides maximum benefits for development. He described developed
play as the leading activity that should emerge at the end of kindergarten andundeveloped play as the kind of play common in younger children.
An important factor for our group seems to have been the lack of teacher
scaffolding for the use both of realistic and imaginary props and pretend scenarios and the lack of talk to help children build language related to their roles
into make-believe play. Bilingual and monolingual preschoolers need opportunities to act out scenarios related to the use of props and language in pretendroles. Children from families of diverse backgrounds have distinct play interestsand skills. Teachers can interact in children’s play to promote cross-cultural andcross-gender play and friendships. Teachers need to interact frequently before
children enter dramatic play and during play time.
Time was another factor. The play in our examples lasted only twenty
minutes. This prekindergarten program calls for a half-day program of ninety
minutes, and children need at least thirty minutes to develop play scenarios(Christie and Wardle 1992).
The situation in our study is typical of today’s early childhood preschoolclassrooms. Make-believe play in classrooms today proves difficult to achieve
because we push preschoolers to be ready for kindergarten and depend too
much on technology. Federal, state, and local directives that focus on math andliteracy assessments narrow the play-based experiences in early childhood (Bas-Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

sock, Latham, and Rorem 2016; Nicolopoulou 2010) because many prekindergarten teachers emphasize academic-content standards over play-based curricula. This is particularly true of low-income, state-funded prekindergarten
programs. Recent longitudinal research (Durkin et al. 2022) followed 2,990
low-income children in Tennessee in state-funded prekindergarten programs.
Some were admitted by lottery, and others were rejected and served as the control group. Durkin and colleagues followed both groups to sixth grade. The
children who went to prekindergarten scored higher on areas of school readiness at the end of their first year. But after third grade, they did worse than thecontrol group. By the end of the sixth grade, they did even worse. The difference
seems that the prekindergarten children were exposed to academic skills andwere expected to sit on their hands while the preschool teacher gave ten-minute,
whole-group lessons. These classrooms did not allow for quality time for playbased activities and dramatic play. The control group attended programs thatembedded play in the curriculum.
Another challenge involves the amount of time preschool children spend onelectronics before they begin attending. Interacting via the Internet with limited
teacher-child and child-child interactions is not the same thing as playing alongside one another in the kind of dramatic play in which real-time negotiations
and pretend role playing occur. Today’s teachers are challenged to find ways forchildren to interact in real time and space with materials that can be props forsymbolic, mature play (Waite-Stupiansky 2023).
Preschool teachers are the key to orchestrating successful peer interactions for all children within early childhood programs including typical,
inclusive, multilingual, and at-risk classrooms. According to Vygotsky (1978),play provides a zone of proximal development for children to achieve beyond
their present level of mastery. Vygotskian theory defines the zone of proximal
development as consisting of two levels: independent performance and performance with assistance from adults or more mature peers. Adults can scaffold
intentional, mature play that constitutes a leading activity for preschool andkindergarten children (Bodrova and Leong 2003). They can support children’s
play by providing the level of guidance needed for children to move forward
and continue to build new competencies to achieve mature play. It is important we remember that children bring their cultural backgrounds to the play
episodes and play situations. During play, children can receive feedback fromtheir peers and adults that help them share this knowledge with each other as
they play. Dual-language learners often do not have the necessary language

349

350

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYskills to communicate with other children (Clawson 2002). Teachers need tosupport the play of children who speak a language different from their peers
by developing children’s ability to communicate with each other. Researchsuggests that such children will sustain interactions with other peers when ateacher actively guides them (Dominguez and Trawick-Smith 2018; Zepeda,
Castro, and Cronin 2011).
Preschool teachers should observe children during thematic make-believe
play to become knowledgeable about when, how, and if they need scaffolding.
Trawick- Smith (2020) held that “teachers can determine the amount and typeof support they should give children in play by carefully observing what children
are currently doing and identifying any need they might have for guidance”(81). Let me offer some ideas to help children develop features of mature play
(Elkonin 1999a; Leong and Bodrova 2012).

Suggestions for Scaffolding PlayFor Vygotsky, children’s learning happens in social interactions with adults andpeers. Additionally, Vygotsky placed a high value on play as a tool for communication and a tool for developing a child’s physical, social, and cognitive
behaviors. Teachers have an important role in scaffolding children in the playprocess. These ideas can be used for children with special needs, DLLs, andchildren who stand and watch other children play but are reluctant to interact.
Scaffold Roles and Rules of Mature PlayTo promote mature play, teachers need to provide opportunities for children toact out dramatic play roles and to offer implicit rules for acting out these roles.
If the theme is a supermarket, for example, a teacher might have children act
out stories related to the supermarket. One then might consider such questions
as: If you were going to the grocery store, what would you do first? Yes, as a customer, you would get a shopping cart and begin putting groceries in your cart.
If you could not find a grocery item, who would you ask? The stock clerk? The
manager? When you are finished shopping, what would you do? Yes, the cashierwould scan your groceries, and you would pay for them. The teacher might thenhave children take on the roles related to shopping in the supermarket. Children
can act out scenarios such as who can find the bread aisle, or if a jar of spaghetti
fell, who will clean it up?

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

Teachers should use both English and a children’s native languages to help
them understand these actions. Bilingual children may need visual representations of their roles. They should provide pictures so DLL children can engage
in play scenarios in both their home languages and in English. The pictures
are a scaffold that DLLs can use to take on roles with their EO peers. DLLs cangesture or act out what they try to communicate with EO players if they do nothave the verbal skill to do so.
DLLs teachers can include scenarios that incorporate children’s uniquecultures and backgrounds. How is the scenario different for children from different cultural backgrounds? When children play “eating dinner,” is it different
in different families? Such teachers might invite parents to take pictures of achild’s family eating at a table and share the pictures during class. They might
invite family members to visit their classrooms to share cultures, traditions,languages, and life experiences to support children’s knowledge of the different
ways families live (Cohen 2009).
Take a Role in the Play
Teachers can either direct children’s actions during play or act as a play partner
to teach DLLs to choose appropriate props and toys, help children plan theirplay, and coach those who may need other help.
Direct Children’s PlayA teacher can act as a mediator for young children at play who so easily find themselves in conflicts they do not know how to resolve. A teacher as director models
and explains problem-solving skills, helping children develop the ability to solve
their own problems. In this sense, teachers have an opportunity to help children
develop social competence and mature play skills. In the director role, teachers
can recognize and teach positive character traits and ways to resolve conflict suchas asking questions that enable DLLs to use their words to communicate solutions
that both parties accept. Teachers may need to stay in a dramatic play center tohelp the children enact the scenario. They should ask the children who they are
and help them clarify the behaviors that go along with their role. They should focus
on the roles and props, perhaps suggesting the use of another prop that would
sustain the role and work in the make-believe play scenario.
Teacher as Partner
Teachers can also play alongside a DLL’s play by acting as a partner to the child.

351

352

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYThe teacher can establish a simple script and model play skills. Pictures related topretend roles can serve as mediators. Simple phrases in a child’s native language
can extend the experience. If children are playing in a pretend restaurant, theteacher might learn some Spanish phrases related to restaurant. For example:“¿Tienes hambre?” (“Are you hungry?”) or “¿Quien va a poner la mesa?” (“Whois going to set the table?”). Once children begin to use their roles to fit the theme
and to play on their own, teachers step back and observe.
Partners and Peer Scaffolding
Several research studies (Alanis and Arreguin 2019; Picker 2013; Scrafton and
Whitington 2015) have examined paired learning for DLLs to promote language
competence. Alanis and Arreguin (2019) shared vignettes of paired learning with
DLLs to build social and linguistic competence. Picker’s (2013) research in a Head
Start center examined DLLs’ play interactions with monolingual children to foster
English learning for DLLs. The mixed-language groups provided optimal circumstances for supporting and producing complex English language. The monolingual
children were willing to continue to play with their Spanish-speaking peers when
language errors occurred. The interactions encouraged Spanish-speaking children
to speak English. The DLLs were frequently unable to communicate verbally or
express ideas and maintain their role in play episodes. Scrafton and Whitington’s(2015) research found similar results in a study of four-year-old and five-year-old
children. Shyness and language competence in English creates barriers for accessing play with English peers, but these hurdles can be mitigated by their peers.
Pairing EO children with DLLs can support make-believe play.
Vygotsky (1978) describes the benefits of peer scaffolding for supporting
development and learning. Bodrova and Leong (2023) wrote that “the notion ofassistance within ZPD needs to be expanded beyond the adult or more experienced peer to include various social contexts, (such as working as a pair, mentoring a less-experienced peer, or engaging in a specifically designed group activity),
various aids and instruments, and behaviors that children can use to self-assist(such as using private speech, writing and drawing)” (67). Teachers can pair a
DLL with an EO student who is at a higher level or stage in make-believe play.
For peer scaffolding to work, teachers can help the mentor assign the role andplan the scenario.
Use of Imaginary Props
Preschool children are provided with realistic toys in their homes and childVygotskian Framework for Observing and Teachingcare centers. Trawick-Smith (2020) states, “Realistic props are those that
resemble real-life materials and suggest an obvious use in play and openended or nonrealistic props are nondescript and do not resemble any one
thing” (159). Elkonin (1999a) identified principals in which play influenceschild development that are foundational for learning in primary grades. One
principal related to the use of symbolic props is advancing the development of
mental representations. In our earlier example, children used real grocery store
items (with the exception of one player who used a block as a toy microphone).
Teachers could have modeled the use of a paper plate as a symbolic substitutefor driving to the supermarket. A cardboard box might have replaced the
shopping cart or paper for the play money. The use of imaginary props needs
explicit modeling for children.
Teachers can remind children of the props in the make-believe play centerand suggest ways to use them. Cohen and her colleagues (Cohen et al. 2014)
conducted a study of which props and bilingual storybooks resulted in greater
gains in English proficiency in preschool DLLs compared to English-only andnonplay conditions. Salinas-González (2018) described an emergent SpanishEnglish Head Start class that set up a panaderia (bakery) in a dramatic playcenter and introduced props in three phases. In the first phase, the teacher
introduced basic bakery props. The third phase included symbolic props as thechildren role played bakery scenarios. Salinas-González suggested allowing
children first to discover the new props, then to follow up with explanations ormodelling of how to use them through role playing.
Model Explicit Language
To support the mature play of preschoolers, after children plan and name theroles they will play, teachers can scaffold language using what Elkonin (1999a)labeled “role speech.” As Bodrova and Leong (2015) noted, “The role a childchooses should be consistent with the speech used for that role as well as the
speech of the child to whom the speech is addressed” (382). Teachers can act
out scenarios using role speech and props. For example, they can use role speech
to model a bakery manager talking to a customer. Children might practice byrepeating, “I am sorry but we are all out of blueberry muffins today. Would you
like a cranberry instead?” Then they can show the customer the menu and takethe new order. Additionally, teachers should use children’s home language, whenpossible, to engage DLLs in self-talk.

353

354

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Ways to Sustain a Play Scenario—Background Knowledge
To help children sustain play for an extended time frame, teachers can borrowideas from children’s literature, invite guest speakers from the community, or
take a field trip. There are numerous works of fiction and nonfiction related
to dramatic play themes that teachers can read aloud to preschool children. A
community field trip can help children develop a higher stage of mature play bylearning about the roles of various community workers. A successful field trip
should include selecting a location, visiting the location, planning for the trip,
preparing children, and extending the experience into the classroom (Cohen
1998). Taking pictures and conducting interviews help children remember theroles of community workers and support their use of role playing and language
skills to enable more mature play in the dramatic play areas.
In a dramatic play center, teachers can copy pictures from books or use
the pictures taken during the field trip to support scenario development. They
can encourage role play in a scenario from a supermarket using props andlanguage. Other adults, when present, can serve as customers or as cashiers.
After modeling for the children, teachers can have children act out placing
groceries in a shopping cart as one scenario followed by another scenario
of having a cashier check out the groceries. They can encourage dialogue toreinforce the roles children play, saying for example, “Tell Marianna who you
are and what you are doing.” Encourage children to act out the scenario in
their home language or in English.
Some DLLs will use gestures to communicate as they are acquiring language. Preschool DLLs gesturing during play supports emergent language andliteracy in elementary grades (Axelrod 2014; Salina-Gonzalez, Arreguín, andAlanis 2017). Children can be encouraged to demonstrate play actions or use
special gestures during role play.
If we want children to progress with later academic skills in math andletter recognition, we need to provide opportunities for play. Vygotskians
believe that language as well as imagination and symbolism are an outcomeof play, not a prerequisite for it. Educators can play with and scaffold negotiations and elaborate during play themes. To support our growing populationof DLLs and monolingual children, teachers must scaffold play in imaginary
situations, roles, and rules to propel preschool mature play.

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

Conclusion
Observation is a fundamental skill for early childhood educators, because it
allows them to monitor closely each child’s development and tailor their teachingapproach to best support the learners. Teachers invest significant time and effort
into learning how to observe without judgment, avoid labels, and become skilled
investigators who can connect their observations to established theories of childdevelopment. Vygotsky (1978) and Elkonin (1999b) have provided invaluable
frameworks for understanding how children learn and grow, and these frameworks serve as essential guides for educators in their everyday practice.
PRoPEls assessment (Leong and Bodrova 2012) is an excellent measure tohelp DLLs and EO children develop into mature players. To support classroom
make-believe play teachers have a crucial role in scaffolding children’s involvement in mature make-believe play. Neo-Vygotskians hold that adults should
mediate play and that the major role of an adult is to present and explain different social roles to children (Karpov 2005). Otherwise, children will not beable to play, and their sociodramatic play will be immature and impoverished.

References
Alanis, Iliana, and Maria G. Arreguin. 2019. “Paired Learning: Strategies for Enhancing
		Social Competence in Dual Language Classrooms.” Young Children 74:6–12.
Alanis, Iliana, María G. Arreguin, and Irasema Salinas-González. 2021. The Essentials:
		Supporting Dual Language Learners in Diverse Environments in Preschool andKindergarten.
Arreguin-Anderson, Maria G., Irasema Salinas-Gonzalez, and Iliana Alanis. 2018.
		
“Translingual Play That Promotes Cultural Connections, Invention, and Regulation: A LatCrit Perspective,” International Multilingual Research Journal 12:273–87.
Axelrod, Ysaaca. 2014. “‘¿Tu Te Acuerdas De Ganchulinas?’: Longitudinal Research with
Young Emergent Bilinguals.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 15:94–108.
Ballad, Wanda S., and Phyllis L. Tighe. 2010. Pre-Idea Proficiency Test: Oral Spanish.
———. 2010. Pre-Idea Proficiency Test: Oral English.
Bassok, Daphna, Scott Latham, and Anna Rorem. 2016. “Is Kindergarten the New First		
Grade?” AERA Open, 1:1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415.
Bodrova, Elena. 2008. “Make-Believe Play Versus Academic Skills: A Vygotskian Approachto Today’s Dilemma of Early Childhood Education.” European Early Childhood
Research Journal 16:357–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930802291777.
Bodrova, Elena, and Deborah J. Leong. 2003. “Chopsticks and Counting Chips: Do Play

355

356

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYand Foundational Skills Need to Compete for the Teacher’s Attention in an Early
Childhood Classroom?” Young Children 58:10–17.
———. 2007. Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education.
2nd ed.
______ . 2015. “The Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian Views on Children’s Play.”American
Journal of Play 3:371-88.
———. 2023. “The Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian Approach: Focusing on ‘The Future		Child.’” In Theories of Early Childhood Education: Developmental, Behaviorist, andCritical. 2nd ed., edited by Lynn E. Cohen and Sandra Waite-Stupiansky, 58–70.
Christie, James F., and Francis Wardle. 1992. “How Much Time Is Needed for Play?”
Young Children 47:28–32.
Clawson, Melissa, A. 2002. “Play of Language-Minority Children in an Early Childhood
Setting.” In Conceptual, Social-Cognitive, and Contextual Issues in the Fields of Play,edited by Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, 93–110.
Cohen, Lynn E. 1998. “Field Trips That Teach.” Early Childhood Today, 12:30–37.
———. 2009. “Exploring Cultural Heritage in a Kindergarten Classroom.” Young Children, 64:72–77.
Cohen, Lynn E., and Joanna Uhry. 2007. “Young Children’s Discourse Strategies during
Block Play: A Bakhtinian Approach.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education
21:302–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2013.876573.
Cohen, Lynn E., Louisa Kramer–Vida, Nancy Frye, and Marina Andreou. 2014. “The
Effect of Bilingual Instruction and Play on Preschoolers’ English Proficiency.”
International Journal of Play, 3:36–52. https://doi:10.1080/21594937.2013.876573.
Corsaro, William A. 1986. “Discourse Processes within Peer Culture: From a Constructivist to an Interpretative Approach to Childhood Socialization” In SociologicalStudies of Child Development, edited by Peter Adler, 81–101.
Dominguez, Stefanie, and Jeffrey Trawick-Smith. 2018. “A Qualitative Study of the Playof Dual Language Learners in an English-Speaking Preschool.” Early Childhood
Education Journal 46:577–86.
Durkin, Kelly, Mark W. Lipsey, Dale C. Farran, and Sarah E. Wiesen, 2022. “Effects ofa Statewide Pre-Kindergarten Program on Children’s Achievement and Behavior through Sixth Grade.” Developmental Psychology 58:470–84. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/dev0001301.
Espinosa, Linda. 2014. Getting It Right for Young Children from Diverse Backgrounds:
Applying Research to Improve Practice with a Focus on Dual Language Learners.
2nd ed.
Elkonin, Daniil B. 1999a. “Toward the Problem of Stages in the Mental Developmentof Children.” Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 37:11–30, https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405370611.
———. 1999b. “The Development of Play in Preschoolers.” Journal of Russian and East
European Psychology 37:31–70. https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405370631.
———. 2005. “The Subject of Our Research: The Developed Form of Play.” Journal of
Russian and East European Psychology 43:22–28. http://doi.org/10.1080/106104

Vygotskian Framework for Observing and Teaching

05.2005.11059245.
García, Ofelia, and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education.
Genesee, Fred, Johanne Paradis, and Martha B. Cargo. 2004. Dual Language Development and Disorders. 1st ed.
Halle, Tamara G., Jessica Vick Whittaker, Marlene Zepeda, Laura Rothenberg, Rachel
Anderson, Paula Daneri, Julia Wessel, and Virginia Buysse. 2014. “The SocialEmotional Development of Dual-Language Learners: Looking Back at Existing
Research and Moving Forward with Purpose.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29:734–49.
Karpov, Yuriy V. 2005. “Three-to-Six-Year-Olds: Sociodramatic Play as the Leading
Activity during the Period of Early Childhood.” In The Neo-Vygtoskian Approachto Child Development, 139–70.
Leong, Deborah J., and Elena Bodrova. 2012. “Assessing and Scaffolding Make-Believe
Play.” Young Children 67:28–34.
Manuilenko, Zinadia V. 1975. “The Development of Voluntary Behavior in Preschool
Age Children.” Soviet Psychology, 13:65–116.
Murphy, Lisa. 2020. Lisa Murphy on Being Child Centered.
Nicolopoulou, Angeliki. 2010. “The Alarming Disappearance of Play from Early Childhood Education.” Human Development, 53:1–4.
Piker, Ruth A. 2013 “Understanding Influences of Play on Second Language Learning:
A Microethnographic View in One Head Start Preschool Classroom. Journal of
Early Childhood Research 11:184–200. http://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X12466219.
Salinas-Gonzalez, Irasema, Maria G. Arreguín, and Iliana Alanís. 2017. “Supporting
Language: Culturally Rich Dramatic Play.” Teaching Young Children 11: 4–6.
Schmerse, Daniel. 2021. “Peer Effects on Early Language Development in Dual Language
Learners.” Child Development 92:2153–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/edev.13588.
Scrafton, Eleanor, and Victoria Whitington. 2015. “The Accessibility of Socio-Dramatic
Play to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Australian Preschoolers.” European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23:213–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1350293X.2015.1016806.
Smirnova, Elena O. 2013. “Play in Modern Pre-School Education” Psychological Scienceand Education, 5:92–98.
Smirnova, Elena O., and Olga V. Gudareva. 2017. “The State of Play among Today’s Preschoolers.” Journal of Russian & East European Psychology 54:252–70.https://doi.
org/10.1080/10610405.2017.1393291.
Trawick-Smith, J. 2020. Young Children’s Play: Development, Disabilities, and Diversity.
United States Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. 2020.
English Learners Demographic Trends.
Waite-Stupiansky, Sandra 2023. “Jean Piaget’s Constructivist Theory of Learning.” In
Theories of Early Childhood Education: Developmental, Behaviorist, and Critical.
2nd ed., edited by Lynn E. Cohen and Sandra Waite–Stupainsky, 58–70.
Vercellino, Valentina, and Karen Moreira. 2023. “Analyzing the Relationship between

357

358

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF		P L AY

Dramatic Play Measures and Self-Regulation from a Cultural-Historical Perspective: A Scoping Review” Revista Argentina de Ciencius del Comportamieto. https://liberi.ucu.edu.uy/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10895/1794/Vercellino.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1967. “Play and Its Role in the Mental Development of the Child.”		
Soviet Psychology, 5:6–18.
———. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Edited byMichael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman.
Zepeda, Marlene, Dina C. Castro, and Sharon Cronin .2011. “Preparing Early Childhood Teachers to Work with Young Dual Language Learners.” Child Development
Perspectives, 5:10–14.