Are We Play-Proofing Preschools,
Kindergartens, and Schools?
Conceptual PlayWorlds as the
Source of Children’s Developmentof Imagination and Learning•
Marilyn Fleer

The author draws on Lev S. Vygotsky’s conception of play and Gunilla
Lindqvist’s methodology concerning the aesthetics of play to discuss playpractice in early childhood classrooms. Based on the study of an educational
experiment at a primary school, she discusses how children in a school setting simultaneously engage in developed forms of imagining employing
concepts in the shared intellectual space afforded by a Conceptual PlayWorld. She argues that, by showcasing for policy makers the advantagesof this cultural-historical program, teachers can support play as a leading
source for the development of imagination and learning for young children
in preschool, kindergarten, and early classrooms. Key words: Conceptual
PlayWorld; cultural-historical theory; imagination; imaginary play; pretend
play; Vygotsky

IntroductionI

aim to examine the problem of imaginary play and the learning of concepts(e.g., measurement) in the context of a schoolroom agenda. I hope to understand better children’s imagining within their play from an intervention study
in which teachers introduced a cultural-historical program called a Conceptual
PlayWorld (Fleer 2021) to frame conceptual learning meaningfully. In a Conceptual PlayWorld, children and teachers enter the imaginary world of a storybook
and become characters from the story. They meet other characters, experience
the drama of play problems that arise in the imaginary situation, and become
motivated to solve the problem using concepts they have researched to keep theplay going. I direct my second goal at policy makers, because the results showthat play-based programs can drive a learning agenda in ways that maintain anddevelop imaginary play. I argue that the development of imagination through302
American Journal of Play, volume 15, number 3 © 2023 by The Strong
Contact Marilyn Fleer at marilyn.fleer@monash.edu

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

children’s play meaningfully supports children’s learning. This sits in contrast to
separating play from learning, in which there lies a high risk that policy makers may further formalize kindergartens and keep teachers from using play as asource of children’s development. I offer my research as evidence to these policy
makers and as a resource to help teachers maintain their play-based programs.
I begin by presenting the problem of the relationship between play andlearning, and I follow with a discussion of children’s development from a cultural-historical perspective. I do so because this cultural-historical theory of playis based on a dialectical logic that offers a rich system of concepts for research.
In this context, I discuss how we can theorize imagination, play, and conceptual
learning. I then offer the details of an educational experiment in which researchers and teachers worked theoretically on the synthesis of play and learning in
the new practices of a Conceptual PlayWorld (Fleer 2021). I discuss the results
and their interpretation in the context of a school-based learning agenda andspeak directly to policy makers. I hold that the findings, when theorized froma cultural-historical perspective, could also act as a resource for teachers andresearchers interested in supporting the development of imagination in play andin building foundational conceptual learning. And I conclude by arguing that,rather than framing play and learning as separate actions as we increasingly
see in current policy, conceptualizing it instead as a synthesis in the practicesof teachers underscores the importance of developing imagination throughcollective play. Based on these findings and theory, I suggest that, through thedevelopment of children’s imagination, we can promote both the learning ofconcepts, such as those found in mathematics, and the development of children’s
imaginary play.

The Problem of How to Bring Concepts
into Children’s PlayWestern countries have increasingly heard calls for better understanding therelations between children’s play and learning (Bodrova and Leong 2019; Wood2014) as some governments seek to increase the cognitive load for children
in preschools and kindergartens (Pyle and Danniels 2017). Some have evenargued that a decline in play (Singer et al. 2009) has resulted in a rise in psychopathology for young people (Gray 2011).
At the same, time several locations in the Southern Hemisphere, such as

303

304

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Hong Kong, mainland China, and Singapore, have sought to support a morecreative citizenship by disrupting formal learning early in life and legislating
through policy (Ministry of Education 2012) and curriculum guidelines callingfor preschools and kindergartens to become more playful (Curriculum Development Council 2017). Significantly, comparative studies between Germany andHong Kong have also illuminated differing value systems and reform movements that problematize universal views on play and learning (Fass, Wu, andGeiger 2017).
Paradoxically, those studies that have focused on children’s play and learning environments appear to be concerned with the same thing—the relationshipbetween play and learning. However, they conceptualize this relation differently (Fleer and van Oers 2018; Gopnik and Walker 2013; Wah 2020). Rather
than offer a binary between work and play (Pyle et al. 2020; Wright 2018) orcounteract the binary of play and learning through introducing terms such as
playful learning (Pramling Samuelsson and Johannsson 2006) or the playinglearning child (Pramling Samuelsson and Carlsson 2008), an increasing numberof researchers bring to the literature a synthesis of play and learning. Thesestudies and theoretical papers proffer such constructs together to address the
problem of isolating play from children’s learning or children’s learning fromtheir imaginary play.
Some researchers conceptualize play within a historical context across species, arguing that imagination, memory, and metacognition matter in pretend
play (Wah 2020). Others focus on a psychological approach to the study of play
(Bergen 2015; Elkonin 2005) or pay more attention to Vygotskian and postVygotskian views on children’s play (Bodrova and Leong 2015). Some researchers
have shown that teachers who adopt a biological perspective (Henricks 2018)believe children are not ready for learning because of a biological need to play
(Elkind 2008).
From this literature, we learn mostly that there exist many conceptions ofplay (Eberle 2014; Henricks, 2018), beliefs about play practices, and differing
views on what constitutes research in play (Lillard et al. 2012; Nicolopoulou andIlgaz 2013). There appears to be more diversity than commonality. Despite suchdiversity of perspectives on play and the changing context for higher cognitive
load in play-based settings, we still need to know more because of the changing
agenda for more formal learning featured by kindergartens in the global northor the need for more play in formal kindergarten settings legislated by somecountries in the global south. This means we need more insights into how imagi-

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schoolsnary play supports imagining the kind of mathematical and scientific concepts
valued by many policy makers. Like Bodrova and Leong (2019), I argue that therelations between imaginary play and the learning of concepts in the context
of a school-based agenda requires further attention if we are to work toward
maintaining or growing play practices in kindergartens and other school settings.

The Cultural-Historical Conception of Development
To understand how play acts as a source for developing children’s imaginationand learning, it is important to introduce briefly the cultural-historical conception of child development Lev S. Vygotsky (1997; 1998) first theorized in a seriesof seminal publications. He criticized previous generations of researchers forconsidering such development primarily in relation to a child’s biological age
and as directly linked to physical change. For earlier researchers, he argued,
the benchmarks of change were not tied to empirical evidence but rather wererandomly selected—using, for example, dentition to illustrate development. The
shadow of this biologically determined view can still be found in current childdevelopment theories tying the stages of development directly to the age of achild. Philosophical beliefs about when education should begin and about progression through schooling were also used to discuss child development (Rogoff2003). Vygotsky argued instead that child development was historically tied to
institutional structures, and these structures continue to shape current government policies and curriculum expectations (Australian Government 2022).
As I noted, we see the remnants of both a biological and an institutionalview of development in the expected milestones of children’s development suggesting what a child can do at a particular age and in age-related progressionin schools. And we also see age-related milestones considered as foundational
in many theories of play, even though the empirical work and theories of playby scholars such as Parten (1933), Smilansky (1968), and Piaget (1962) camelong before the Internet, global travel, and smart phones changed the content ofchildren’s play and how they experience the world (Correa-Chavez, Majia-Arauz,
and Rogoff 2015). Some have problematized Western-oriented developmental
theories of play, arguing they are culturally biased (Goncu and Gaskins 2007)
and do not take account of the context and community in which a child grows
up. Nevertheless, theories of play continue to shape beliefs and practices inpreschools and kindergartens (Fleer and van Oers 2018). Consequently, a belief

305

306

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

that play is biologically motivated and develops in relation to a child’s age suggests that adults do not have a role in the development of children’s play (Pyleet al. 2017).
To the contrary, I suggest that, in everyday life, the differing social situationsof children are not devoid of adults. We know from the long-standing research of
Correa-Chavez, Majia-Arauz, and Rogoff (2015), how cultural practices withincommunities create social situations that build cultural orientations and competencies for children in particular communities. The biological perspective
holding that development follows predetermined milestones, which has dominated beliefs about children’s play progression, misses the dialectical relation
between a child’s social situation in play and a child’s particular developmental
orientation to play, which Vygotsky (1994) saw as a unity.
A second key concept introduced by Vygotsky (1998) was cultural age. This
concept captures the periodization of children’s development as an alternative
to what he named as the passport age of the child. He considered change inchildren’s development not to be associated with age, but rather to be a cultural
determinant and a social relation, one in which change was driven throughsocially oriented crises. Vygotsky (1998) said crisis could be viewed “as turning
points of development,” in which “the child becomes relatively difficult due tothe fact that the change in the pedagogical system applied to the child does notkeep up with the rapid changes in his personality” (Vygotsky 1998, 193–94).
Vygotsky introduced the concept of the social situation of development
to explain how the formations of development emerge and transform in social
relations, including crises within a pedagogical system. Vygotsky said, “At the
beginning of each age period, there develops a completely original, exclusive,
single, and unique relation, specific to the given age, between the child and reality, mainly the social reality that surrounds him. We call this relation the social
situation of development at a given age.” (Vygotsky 1998, 198; original emphasis).
Each cultural age period has its own unique social situation of development.
Vygotsky established that children in the same social situation bring theirown social situation of development and interpret the same environment differently (Vygotsky 1994). He showed that children growing up in the same family
will interpret, for example, a crisis of neglect differently and that what constitutes
a crisis for one child may not do so for another. A young child does not comprehend this social situation and becomes distressed, but an older child with adifferent social situation of development can understand the circumstances andact accordingly, even taking on the role of a parent to a younger sibling.

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

This has resonance for bringing changes to the pedagogical system throughthe introduction of a Conceptual PlayWorld. How children meet new demands
can be better understood through examining the relation between the social
situation of play and the social situation of development of a diverse group ofchildren. When we apply this dialectical relation between social situation ofplay and of development to a more cognitively oriented pedagogical system inkindergarten, we find that a child whose leading activity is to play will address thesame classroom activity differently from a child whose leading activity is to learn(Fleer 2017). As recurrent demands, learning concepts can collectively contributeto a developmental crisis in support of a new social situation of development.
However, Vygotsky did not use leading activity as category. Rather, heoffered the idea of dominant motives within broad developmental periods inwhich the activity of a child, such as to play, develops particular psychological functions, such as imagination. Similarly, in the institutional practices ofschooling, the dominant motive is learning, and the psychological functionof memory is said to be developing. Vygotsky (1966) mentioned the conceptof leading activity only in relation to play, but Leontiev (1978) developed it
further, and I found this concept useful for a study of imagination in play andlearning because activity as a construct offers us the possibility of looking at thedevelopmental turning point or moments in a Conceptual PlayWorld in which
the recurrent demands for play and learning are evident. Thus, I use it for its
potential to conceptualize the changes over time in periods of development wemight expect from children of kindergarten age.
I also take from Vygotsky his conceptualization of imagination as a psychological function within his theory of child development. Vygotsky (1998)
argued that the “general structure of consciousness changes” (197) and that thecultural expressions and realities of children up to eight years old depend on thepsychological function of imagination. Vygotsky’s (1966) periodization of thedevelopment of imagination highlights its unique psychological function during
the preschool and kindergarten years. Both—how imaginary play acts as thesource of a child’s development during this period and how this imaginary playchanges from birth to eight years old—is especially relevant for our study. It is
not only foundational for the developmental period of the study, it highlights
play as the dominant activity of a kindergarten child’s developing imagination.
We were mindful that Vygotsky’s psychological function of imagination could
move our focus from cultural practices to the biology of a child. Still, we conceptualize imagination culturally rather than biologically. In this reading, the

307

308

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYintervention of a Conceptual PlayWorld can act as a source for the developmentof imagination in both the play and the learning of concepts as they become
consciously realized in the drama of the narrative that teachers and children
experience together.
Vygotsky (1966) suggested that when children create imaginary situations,they move beyond their perceptual field and change the meaning of the objects
they see. This has significance for the imagining of concepts as the play itself
develops. Vygotsky offers the example of a stick that becomes a horse for a child
who, placing the stick between his or her legs, becomes a rider. The object acts
as a pivot for new action in play. A new level of consciousness emerges in play asthese object-based pivots get replaced by words (Vygotsky 2005). Later, children
announce through words their intentions in an imaginary situation. Later still,roles and rules become more consciously understood in developed forms of play.
Vygotsky’s (1966) illustration of this involved two girls pretending to besisters in their play. They made conscious the concept of sisterhood in theirplay—how to act as a sister meant consciously exploring the roles and rules
associated with sisterhood as an abstract concept realized in their play. Thus,
conceptual development in play can create the conceptual conditions for learning. Theoretically, it also shows how children’s development of imagination grows
their capacity to learn new concepts such as sisterhood. Our study aligned withthis theorization because the Conceptual PlayWorld creates the motivating conditions for playing and learning, in which the conscious realization of the concepts associated with the solving of particular problems emerges through play.
Another of Vygotsky’s key concepts explains development as the dialectical
relation between the real and the ideal form. Vygotsky (1998) argued that thepedagogical system surrounding a child must come in advance of the child’s
actual development for such development to occur. In our study, we developed
imaginary play as the ideal form in the Conceptual PlayWorld by having teachers assume a play role rather than a teaching role. Ideal forms of play exist ina child’s environment always in relations to the child’s present form of play. In
principle, “the social environment is the source for the appearance of all specific human properties of the personality gradually acquired by the child or thesource of social development of the child which is concluded in the process ofactual interaction of ‘ideal’ and present forms” (203). This emphasizes the needfor teachers to create the ideal forms of imaginary play as part of their pedagogical practice. The intervention of a Conceptual PlayWorld, in which we feature
imaginary play and the imagining of concepts, pedagogically calls on teachers

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

to introduce into the children’s environment ideal forms of imaginary play.
Taken together, all this makes it possible to see how Vygotsky theorized thedevelopment of the child not as a linear progression, but rather as “a dialecticalprocess in which a transition from one stage to another [that] is accomplished
not along an evolutionary, but along a revolutionary path” (193). This revolutionary view of child development proposed by Vygotsky features social relations
and cultural age periods and suggests an active role for adults in children’s playsuch as that also theorized by Lindqvist (1995), who drew on Vygotsky’s theoryof development for her drama pedagogy. Both Vygotsky’s and Lindqvist’s focus
on the role of teachers in creating drama or crises to amplify development are
central to this article (along with Vygotsky’s theory of play).

Educational Experiment
Our research question, then, was: Under the conditions of a Conceptual PlayWorld, what was the role of imagination in the play and conceptual learningof children?
To understand the relations between play and learning in kindergarten
settings, we undertook a study of three teachers and eighteen children from one
school as an educational experiment (Fleer 2021). In a cultural-historical context,
this educational experiment constituted a collaboration between researchers
and teachers concerning a theoretical problem rather than merely a problem ofpractice (Hedegaard 2008). In our educational experiment, one field researcher
helped teachers introduce an ideal form of a Conceptual PlayWorld, and we
studied the play conditions social situation of child development under theintervention of a Conceptual PlayWorld (see Fleer 2020).
The Intervention
A Conceptual PlayWorld is a model to guide pedagogical practice. It was developed to help teachers design teaching programs in which concepts act inservice of children’s play (Fleer 2019) based on the premise that play createsthe motivation for solving a problem. A Conceptual PlayWorld consists offive characteristics.
The first involves selecting a children’s book with an emotionally charged,
dramatic story line in which children empathize with the characters. In ourstudy, the teachers chose the The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett

309

310

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYboth because it featured dramatic moments and was rich in possible play activity. (In the book, guided by Red Robin, the characters find a key and enter anovergrown garden). The second characteristic concerns designing an imaginary
space in which both teachers and children can assume the roles of characters inthe story and act out its plot. (Here, the teachers planned the imaginary spaceof a secret garden using the outdoor school play area). The third characteristic
involves planning a routine for the whole group to enter and exit the imaginary
space. (Here the teachers used a large metal key and pretended to unlock andlock the garden). The fourth characteristic introduces a play problem that supports conceptual learning. (Here, using a mobile phone recording with staticsound effects, the teachers introduced the children to the problem of entering
the garden and then undertaking space travel to go to the moon to rescue Cousin
Robin. According to the recording, Red Robin had sent a satellite message to thechildren saying she was stuck on the far side of the moon, that her solar power
was being depleted, and that she needed help. The plot was designed to fit theeducational program for mathematics and science by studying the relations
between the earth, the moon and the sun by considering their rotations andorbits but also by allowing children to introduce their own characters and play
problems as the narrative developed.) The fifth characteristic relates to teachersplanning their role as play partners to motivate play but also to make available tothe children developed forms of play in which they might show (through theiractions of being a character from the story) imaginary play in action and how
the concepts act in service of the play problem (Fleer 2019).
SampleThe kindergarten and first-year classrooms were located in a middle-class community in Southeastern Australia. The first year of school in Australia goes bydifferent names in different states, but it is the year in which a child turns six
years old. The outdoor play area of our school was rich in natural materials,
including climbing frames, pathways, trees, and green areas for running. The
curriculum of the school followed the guidelines set by Australia’s Departmentof Education, with elements taken from the international baccalaureate program
for the early years of education.
Our three teachers were four-year university degree qualified and had
between seven and ten years teaching experience. They were from European
backgrounds. The teachers regularly planned their programs together and sharedresources and teaching spaces when undertaking joint teaching programs. The

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

Conceptual PlayWorld was taught in the two classrooms and constituted bothindividual classroom teaching and team teaching.
Our lead researcher designed the broad intervention of the five characteristics, and our field researcher, an expert in the intervention, helped the threeclassroom teachers plan the specific authentic play problem and guided them
toward becoming play partners with the children in the Conceptual PlayWorld of
the Secret Garden. The field researcher mostly helped the three teachers assume
their character roles and create the imaginary situation. Finally, a research assistant filmed the experiment.
A total of eighteen children aged 5.6 to 7.4 years (mean 6.4 years) consented to participate in the study. The children were of Australian/Anglo/ New
Zealand , Euro Australian, Euro/New Zealand/Australian, and Asian Australian
backgrounds. Seven children were girls and eleven were boys.
The Procedure
In step one—professional development—we introduced the teachers to the intervention of a Conceptual PlayWorld by showing them a planning proforma andexamples of Conceptual PlayWorlds for each of the five characteristics, all ofwhich took an hour.
In step two, the teachers workshopped the planning of a Conceptual PlayWorld for an hour using the proforma. They also workshopped the research
problem of importing concepts into children’s play and how teachers can do soas play partners.
In step three, The teachers and researchers designed the Conceptual PlayWorld program, and they met each week to review the play’s progress and the
additional problems they could introduce to help develop the imaginary play.
In step four, they implemented and documented the Conceptual PlayWorld over a period of eleven weeks as the research assistant made a total ofnineteen visits to the school. The main researcher created a set of questions thatthe research assistant asked the teachers in situ during observation periods andalso during the planning sessions—saying, for example, “We notice you...” or“Can you tell us more?”—to understand better the practices they had digitally
recorded.
In step five, at the end of the teaching period, the research assistant undertook a stimulated recall with nine children in groups of two or three in which
she showed the children two relevant video clips of their Conceptual PlayWorldin action (in total seven video clips of two minutes each) and asked them about

311

312

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

the content of the clips—for example: “Can you tell me about this? How did
you feel? What was important here for you?” These sessions were digitally video
recorded and transcribed.
And finally, in step six, the research assistant interviewed the teachers foran hour about the planned and implemented pedagogical practices of their
Conceptual PlayWorld of the Secret Garden (asking, for example, “What did
you do? What were the challenges?”).
Data Generated
We video recorded all sessions each week using two cameras, one on a tripod to
capture the classroom and the other a handheld camera to follow the children as
they entered the secret garden. We generated 34.2 hours of video data. We also
digitally recorded all planning sessions in situ, 10.4 hours of digital interviews
and planning, which we transcribed. We captured digitally samples of children’s
drawings and work. We took photographs of practices, displays, and relevantpedagogical materials. We generated ninety-six emails and digitally recordedplanning documents during the educational experiment. We also gathereddigital images of 182 drawings and prototypes and forty-three photographs ofchildren working and digitally recorded twenty-three mind maps.
Analysis
We organized the digital data chronologically and placed it in seventeen numbered digital folders. Each folder contained subfolders of video observations,mind maps, photographs, field notes, transcriptions, children’s drawings, teacher
planning documents, YouTube URLs, and environmental displays. We logged
and time stamped all digital video observations and organized them in relation
to camera type and position (i.e., tripod or handheld).
We made our interpretations of a single video observation or several suchobservations in relation to concepts of mathematics, science, digital technology,
design and technology, engineering, or to everyday conceptions of a phenomenon(like rainbows rather than refraction of light), or to imaginary play (for example, tosignal how an imaginary situation like a key is used in the play. A child announces,say, “Here is the key to unlock the Secret Garden” to represent an idea such as turning the key and moving into the imaginary space. The key acts as a transition into
the imaginary space and as a placeholder of the idea. That is, the key stimulates anarrative that all the children show they are part of—a collective imagining of thestory narrative involving rescuing a character in the Secret Garden.

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

Next, we tagged contextual data to determine patterns and the densityof data associated with the interpretations. For example, the categories of data
we had identified, such as, a particular concept, we logged in the data set andmade a digital copy of the play, which we placed in a folder labelled “concepts.”
In that folder, were identified subcategories such as “mathematics” or “science.”
This process gave a density to the data associated with each identified category(that is, to each folder of digital video data).
Finally, we brought to bear on the interpreted data set the dialectical conceptions of ideal and real forms of development (Vygotsky 1994), the social situation and social situation of development (Vygotsky 1998), and imaginary play
(Vygotsky 1966) to help answer our research question. This theoretical analysis
sat within Vygotsky’s system of concepts and underpins his cultural-historicalconception of child development.

Results
A cultural-historical conception of development shows imaginary play as theleading activity in the early childhood period associated with children’s social
situation of development (Leontiev 1978; Vygotsky 1998), and in the first yearof school, it is associated with the development of memory. However, thechildren in our study came from both periods of development. Therefore, we
enjoyed a rich research context in which to study the role of imaginary play inthe conceptual learning of children. We expected that imagining the science
concepts associated with the relations between the earth, the moon, and thesun, and associated mathematical concepts could be supported in the collective imaginary play of the Secret Garden. Overall, we found that children ina school setting in kindergarten and year one engaged in developed forms ofimagining (creating or being in an imaginary situation; giving new meaning
to the perceptual field; using objects or words as placeholders of imagined
new meaning) even as they used everyday concepts in their thinking within
the shared intellectual space afforded by a Conceptual PlayWorld. We identified that the imaginary play created a shared narrative that collectively solved
the drama that emerged in the play narrative. We present these overall results
for the children’s conceptual thinking with typical examples of data featuring
mathematics is as only an illustration of a particular concept. We note thatchildren in this cultural age period are likely to work with everyday concepts

313

Mathematical Concepts

Making those Maths Concepts
Visible in the Environment

Conceptual Play World

By the end of the Foundation year,
students make connections between
number names, numerals and quantities up to 10.
Students count to and from 20 andorder small collections. They groupobjects based on common characteristics and sort shapes and objects
They compare objects using mass,
length, and capacity

Designing space suits at
NASA training campStudents connect events and the daysof the week.

Pancake Tuesday on a
Wednesday?

Day 1: preparing forspace travel

They explain the order andduration of events.

Working out what is needed
for successful space travel
They use appropriate language todescribe location.

Describing location ofearth, moon
Students answer simple questions tocollect information and make simple
inferences.

Figure 1. Mathematical concepts for foundation level and associated play materials(column 2) and imaginary play (column 3)

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schoolsor phenomena, rather than fully formed concepts, which Vygotsky (1998)
called true concepts.
In figure 1, we summarize the two contexts: mathematics play area (column
2) and mathematics Conceptual PlayWorlds (column 3). First, let us consider
the play area.
Mathematics Play Area and Display
The mathematics area offered a space for children to explore mathematical concepts and display what they accomplished in a single session. We found that thecontent of the mathematical activity on the displays did not interconnect or link
directly to an imaginary play situation (e.g., figure 1, column 2). We also foundthe mathematical activity displayed had a single focus, which could be completed
in one session. We know that the Australian education system views mathematic
goals with their accompanying lessons as a valued practice (Australian Government 2022). In addition, researchers report that mathematics play activity areas
have been set up for playful learning that involves free play, guided play, andeducational math games (Hassinger-Das et al. 2018) or as tools for explorationand investigation in which creative play and mathematical reasoning give riseto “big” ideas in mathematics (Cheeseman, McDonough, and Golemac 2017).
Our analysis shows that the beginning point for children in the mathematics playarea was the learning of a mathematical concept but that the activity as presented(e.g,, pancake day) did not appear to encourage imaginary play.
Interpretation of Conceptual PlayWorld
In contrast to the mathematical play area, the Conceptual PlayWorld (column 3)began with the play problem as an imaginary situation. We found that imaginary
play with the drama of a problem appeared to act as a glue to bind over time
one learning experience to another. We suggest this is because the Conceptual
PlayWorld sessions were thematically connected to the play problems that arosein the play narrative, which is different from single stand-alone sessions that are
not interconnected or linked over time. For instance, row 2 shows the imaginary situation of children as astronauts, certified by NASA with a prototype
they constructed using 3-D materials, coded as part of their rocket launch, andthey count down from ten or five, all as part of a simulated NASA mission. The
children also designed space suits, exploring sizes and comparing lengths within
the imaginary situation of attending a NASA space training camp (row 3) toprepare for space travel (row 4). Plans not only included plotting the relations

315

316

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYbetween the earth, the moon, and the sun (row 5), but how to meet the play
challenge of rescuing Cousin Robin, which meant collecting information about
the percentage of oxygen still available to her and making simple inferences
about what to do to save her (row 6).
The imaginary situation entailed both NASA space training camp and rescuing Cousin Robin from the far side of the moon, creating the need to imagine
rocket designs (realized as drawings) plus the steps and criteria for successful
space travel and the coded flight path for the rocket in relation to the moon,
the earth, and the sun. These imaginings are all tied directly to the mathematical concepts shown in column 1 and expected to be achieved at the end of thefoundation year in Australia (Australian Government 2023). The imaginary playsituations appeared to create a context for imagining mathematical concepts to
support the children’s play.
We suggest that children do not think in curriculum boxes, and the results
shown here align with this view. The imaginary play appears to interconnect all
the curriculum concepts from the mathematics curriculum and (as we will show)
helps make mathematical concepts personally meaningful to the children. Thisis consistent with findings by Li and Disney (2021) about preschool children
in a mathematical play world that “peer relations and interactions in the playworld also stimulated the motivating conditions to inspire the whole group ofchildren to engage in problem solving and enhance their collective thinking”
in mathematics (12).
Recognition of Children’s Social Situation of Development
Our study found that teachers (Patrick, Olivia, and Cassandra) appeared to
draw on children’s play as a leading activity to support the children’s learning ofconcepts. Even though schools foreground learning as the primary function of
the institution and educational systems expect teachers to create conditions formeeting the achievement standards, the teachers in this study noted the children’s social situation of development when planning a Conceptual PlayWorld.
Cassandra: You are jumping into the children’s world. They are very
adept in that play. We are coming in and hoping to introduce
things within the play scenario. It is so much fun to do.
Patrick: As teachers we intuitively know that play works. And play is
the child’s world. And we enjoy playing as well, that’s why we areteachers. So often we find it difficult to know why a school would

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

not take that approach. So, for us it was so easy. We are playing.
We are dealing with [or covering] the concept [too].
Knowing children’s social situation of development, the teachers prepared
new social situations that they believed would motivate the children to learn theconcepts expected in the achievement standards. They provided an example of anobservation of a Conceptual PlayWorld in which teachers create the motivating
conditions for a simulated rocket launch as part of the imaginary situation ofMission Control for astronauts:
The children are now towards the end of their ten-week program
focusing on STEM. They are seated in a circle as astronauts in Mission
Control (classroom) with their teachers who are also astronauts andhave just viewed their simulation of their rocket launch on the big
screen using a software program. This session was based on previous
weeks of designing and prototyping, as well as embodying throughplay the imaginary situation of visiting NASA in character as astronauts and scientists preparing and launching into space. On the screen
the rocket launches successfully, but then explodes as it enters the second stage of the launch. The children in Mission Control discuss theirunsuccessful launch and later move into groups to further research
how to change their plans for a successful launch. The children takeback to Mission Control their solutions. This is done in the imaginary
context of continuing in their role as astronauts and scientists on a
mission to save Cousin Robin and Colin who are on opposing sidesof the moon (far and near sides). As part of the debriefing, Astronaut(Teacher) Cassandra asks, “Can you think of some things that did
work about our original design?” Astronaut Freya responds, “Original
not so good. Because I think we needed a [pause], not so many booster
packs because … so that we could not make it so many altogether….”
The social situation of a Conceptual PlayWorld offered the possibility forthe children to consider why the rocket launch had failed, which then provided
a system of concepts for explaining what happened that enabled them to plan
the next launch better. In the astronauts’ reflections about the rocket launchfollowing what we just quoted, Astronaut Mitch explained how the collective
mass of the rocket does not support the propulsion needed.

317

318

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra: So, can I ask a question?
Astronaut Mitch nods yes.
Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra: I didn’t think to count how many
booster packs were on there, if you had to guess, how many boosters do you think we had on that rocket
Astronaut Mitch: Eighteen.
Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra: Eighteen. Do you think that is too
many?
Astronaut Mitch: YES! I think that rocket blew up [pointing to big
screen] because it had too many stuff on there.
Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra: Too many?
Astronaut Mitch: Something. Something on the rocket. Somethingthat was connected too many. And it gets pushier and pushier andthen it just exploded [shows collection with hands].
Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra: So, you think it was carrying too
much?
Astronaut (Teacher) Olivia: I am really connecting with you. So, it had
too many boosters and was too heavy and couldn’t get the proper
propulsion that it needs to go further through the atmosphere.
The imaginary play offers the system of concepts needed to explain why therocket launch failed—force, mass, and number, which the teachers name in theimaginary situation. Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra sets up the moment for Astronaut Mitch to share his understandings in the imaginary play, but it is Astronaut(Teacher) Olivia who supports Astronaut Mitch through affirmation of his inference (i.e., “rocket blew up . . . because it had too many stuff on there”) and thenprovided some of the conceptual language to capture his thinking using scientificand mathematical terms (i.e., “too many boosters and was too heavy and couldn’t
get the proper propulsion”). This typical example illustrates of how teachers incharacter and in play introduce the language of concepts to children but do so at
moments when the children are imagining—through collective play—particularimaginary moments related to the narrative of the play plot. Our research showedthat this kind of imaginary play, illustrated here between children and teachers,
over time produces conceptual language within a system of concepts bound within
imaginary play. It can be argued that the foundation for theoretical thinking (Davydov 1990) could be supported in imaginary play, which is more complex than thatshown in figure 1, column 2 for the mathematics play area.

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

How Concepts Act in Service of Children’s PlayTo understand how concepts acted in service of the collective imaginary playinside Mission Control among astronauts (teachers and children), we present infigures 2 and 3 a detailed analysis of the dialectical relation between conceptionsof the everyday phenomena introduced into the imaginary play of this example
of a rocket launch and the curriculum concept that the teachers have planned.
Collectively they offer a typical example of teachers introducing concepts into
the imaginary play situation and children’s real understanding of the concepts
as shown in figure 1, column 1.

Curriculum concept(Australian Government, 2023)

What children are bringing to theimaginary play situation

Connections between
number names, numerals
and quantities up to 10

Astronaut Anamika: You put
too many [boosters] on it [rocket].
If you only put 4 on, it won’t
explode. (Too many booster
explode Eileen)

Astronaut Michelle: We may haveneeded 30 petrol tankers on like trucks
to get the whole rocket eered [filled] it(tankers 30 to fuel)Astronaut (teacher) Olivia:
Not double, but three times the amount of fuel.
Astronaught Sylvia: Actually, it is four times(double-4 times fuel)Astronaut Anamika: I am thinking that therocket just blew up.
Astronaut (teacher) Olivia: Why?
Astronaut Anamika: Because there
were too many boosters.
Ruth: So we need to think, how many boosters?
(Reflection Anamika too many boosters)

Figure 2: Children’s real form of development of mathematical concepts in the context
of an imaginary situation

319

320

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYIn figure 2, the children use number concepts when discussing how many
boosters were needed for a successful launch (rows 1 and 3) and how many fueltankers were needed to fill the boosters (row 2).
These typical examples illustrate the use of abstract mathematical concepts
being brought to bear on the problem that had arisen in the imaginary play ofthe children. The simulated rocket launch was the culmination of their preparation for space travel, their prototyping, and the drama of saving Cousin Robin(our overview is shown in figure 1, column 3). Figure 3 offers an example of one
child’s play plan to save Cousin Robin, establishing the priorities for the rescue
by using numerals and noting the drama and urgency through recording thepercentage of oxygen left (15 percent). Also evident are the directional arrows
that signal how to leave the rocket station and travel to the far side of the moon.
To understand fully how concepts support the imaginings of children, we
need to go beyond the real form of children’s thinking (e.g., as when Mitch says,“rocket blew up. . . because it had too many stuff on there”) and also look closely

Figure 3. Rescue mission

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

Achievement standard

What teachers are bringing to theimaginary play situation

Connections between
number names, numerals
and quantities up to 10

Astronaut (teacher)Cassandra is standing
holding a clipboard witha colourful sheet with
NASA logo and says,“Here is the calculations
that NASA has provided
us with. We will have agood look at this to makesure what we are thinkingof is what’s described
here. So that will helpus”. Cassandra then picks
up a clip board with theheading: Checklist for
take-off, and says pointing
to each line of text, “The5 technologies that weneed to ensure that ourrocket has”. She continues
to point and read out eachline, with elaboration.
The children and teachers organize to move from the circle to theirworkshop where they revise their launch plans. Astronaut (teacher)
Patrick stands and says, “We need 5 teams”. He gently taps Astronaut
Anamika and she stands as Astronaut (teacher) Patrick says, “You areTeam number 1”. He then takes Alysa by the hand and brings her next toAstronaut Anamika as he says, “Your Team number 2. You are goingto stand here”. Astronaut Sylvia turns and faces to form the head of theline. Astronaut (teacher) Patrick then taps both children on the headas he counts, “One, Two.” Astronaut (teacher) Patrick moves to create aspace for Team three, as he says, “Orchid, your Team number 3 over here”.
He then repeats, tapping each child on the head and counting to 3. He
invites the leader of Team 4 saying, “Nareen, up you come to me”. Astronaut Nareen moves into the position, as Astronaut (teacher) Patrick
invites the 5th child, “And Chloe, you can be 5”. Astronaut (teacher)
Patrick invites children one by one to stand behind a team leader callingthe number as each child stands in the respective team (Sort into teams).
The children move in their groups to separate areas in the classroom andwork in their teams to revise the rocket launch plan.

Figure 4: Mature form of mathematical concepts are introduced by the teachers in thecontext of the imaginary situation

321

322

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYat the developed concepts available in the environment. Figure 4 shows examplesof mathematical concepts introduced by the teachers inside the imaginary situation. The checklist for the rocket launch supports the children’s reflections about
what went wrong with the take-off, but it is presented by Teacher Cassandra ina way that references the numerals 1 to 5 (five technologies in Row 1). Similarly,
row 2 shows how the teachers organize the children into teams of five to reinforce
sets and support number sense associated with the respective numeral.
But to understand the children’s engagement with the concepts, we need asynthesis of the developed and real forms of imaginary play. This indicates how
teachers create the motivating conditions for children’s learning of concepts.
The examples here were consistent with the data set, showing evidence that thechildren were invested in the imaginary play and wanted to help the charactersto rescue Cousin Robin. In the following example midway through the imaginary
situation of launching the rocket as a simulation, field researcher Ruth amplifies
in her character as an astronaut the drama of the problem, which is emphasized
by the teacher to give urgency to the imaginary problem of Cousin Robin andColin on different sides of the moon.
Astronaut (Researcher) Ruth stands up from the circle and says to all
the other astronauts, “I didn’t want to worry everyone, but I think it’stime.” The children look to her as she walks and says, “When I wason the phone to NASA this morning [pause]. The reason I was on thephone in the car, was because they had some communication with
Colin and Cousin Robin and their supplies [pauses]. And today’s thelast day.” Astronaut (Teacher) Patrick says, “So we have got to go?”Astronaut (Researcher) Ruth replies, “Yes we have to go today. NASA
did recognize that we can work as a team. They have recognized thatour prototype is incredible. Our science knowledge is [pauses].” Astronaut (Teacher) Patrick finishes the sentence, “Not good.” Astronaut(Researcher) Ruth responds instantly, “No! It is very very good. It isstrong.” Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra says, “It launched.” Astronaut Simon says, “It crashed (referencing the pilot launch).” Astronaut(Researcher) Ruth looks to Astronaut (Teacher) Cassandra and asks,“Cassandra, do you have some of those revisions? The equations andcalculations for our revisions that NASA sent us to help us?” Astronaut Francine taps Astronaut (Researcher) Ruth and inquires about
the new calculated launch, “But we are going to crash.” AstronautAre We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools(Researcher) Ruth responds dynamically saying, “No no, we will notcrash because NASA has shown us what our current situation is, andin teams we can make the revisions.”
Astronaut (Researcher) Ruth amplified the imaginary situation. She brought
the children back to the urgency of saving Cousin Robin. Consistent across thedata set was the amplification of the problem in the imaginary play situation. The
examples from the data set collectively suggest that the play problem that arose
was personally meaningful to the children. Engagement in the play problem
enacted in the imaginary situation of Mission Control—looking at simulationsof the rocket launch—supported opportunities not only to explore the play problem but also to hear mathematical language in a meaningful context. Althoughteachers set up the imaginary situation through the story and the drama of theplay problem, the children appeared engaged in this process, which was also
evident when they directed the NASA mission with their designed solutions (e.g.,
figure 3), when they designed their own imagined space suits, and when theycollectively became astronauts in the rocket (the playground frame was used asa rocket) helping Cousin Robin and later Colin. In line with the children’s social
situation of development, the problems that arose in the imaginary situations
needed to be solved for the play to continue.

Discussion
Our study sought to understand the role of imaginary play in the conceptual
learning of children. Imagination appeared to resource the children’s learningof concepts. The results showed that children brought into the collective imaginary play a system of concepts for solving the problems that arose in the narrative of the Conceptual PlayWorld. For example, we saw how imaginary play of
Astronaut Mitch established that, in the imaginary play, the number of boosters—with their combined mass and under the conditions of earth’s gravitational
force—could not create the propulsion needed for a successful rocket launch.
The study found that the imaginary situation acted as the glue for bringing
together the learning of concepts over time. Rather than one-off sessions focusedon a particular mathematical concept (see figure 1, column 2), such as time, inwhich events and days of the week were recorded as Pancake Tuesday or on acalendar, the imaginary situation built a narrative that matured from lesson to les-

323

324

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYson. For example, when children prepared for space travel—designing space suits,
preparing rocket prototypes, and calculating their rocket launch—they worked
with the concept of time and space. Significantly, the study identified that theimaginary situation began with a play problem, and the one-off session beganwith the concept. The content analysis of the concepts and how concepts wereintroduced to children revealed imagining over time within the classroom andthe possibilities for imaginary play to support conceptual learning as part of children’s schoolwork. This aligns with the mathematical play world study of Li andDisney (2021) who used the narrative of a children’s book to show how to link a
problem situation from one preschool session to another in ways meaningful toyoung children.
Our results also show that, in imaginary play, children are motivated tolearn mathematical concepts. The teachers recognized that children’s social situation of development and leading activity was play. The children were highly
invested in the play problems that arose, because they wanted to help the characters involved, and this meant drawing on concepts to solve the problem. For
example, the children drew maps and used directional arrows to work out flightplans (figure 3) for their rocket so that it could navigate to the far side of themoon and rescue Cousin Robin. The teachers added more problems over time,such as Colin traveling to the moon in search of Cousin Robin, but landing on
the near side of the moon. With two destinations to plan for, the complexitiesof the earth’s rotation and the moon orbiting the earth, meant bringing in newmathematical concepts of percentages of oxygen and doubling and tripling fuelcalculations in relation to the number of launches needed. The play problems
created the drama that in turn drove the need for learning the concepts. The
problem was successfully resolved using mathematical concepts in the collective imaginary situation. This resulted in motivated conditions for learning. The
finding builds on studies working with the premise that curiosity and wondering emerge from materials (Cheeseman 2019) and the need for adults to noticechildren’s wonderings (Cheeseman, McDonough, and Golemac 2017). In thesestudies the drama of the problem acts as the motivating force, which we believe iscurrently missing in the inquiry-based learning described in the literature (Sullivan et al. 2021). Relevant are the writings of Watt, Carmichael, and Callingham(2017), who in citing Eccles (2016) and others discuss emotional engagement
in mathematics. Emotional engagement has been shown to be positively associated with student achievement, notably through deeper learning and adoption of self-regulated learning strategies. Enjoyment and interest in the learning

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

tasks are typically associated with emotional engagement (Watt, Carmichael,
and Callingham 2017).
Overall, we can argue that a shared intellectual space was developed
through the collective imagining of the children and the teachers. That is, theimaginary play created a physical and intellectual space where children andteachers shared in a set of authentic mathematical problems. Under the conditions of a Conceptual PlayWorld, the role of imagination in the learning ofmathematical concepts appears to be foundational. The results of the study suggest that imaginary play appeared to act as an important source of children’sdevelopment of imagination and mathematical thinking. But, without further
research, the digital observations of behavior and children’s drawings can only
suggest this outcome. However, the suggestion is in keeping with Vygotsky’s(1966) premise of imagination developing during early childhood through play
and that the emergence of logical memory and abstract thought occurs for theschool age child through the development of children’s imagination.
The findings of our study are also consistent with the outcomes of research
by Bodrova and Leong (2019) using their Tools of the Mind program to support teachers to create conditions for the development of children’s play. Theretoo, imaginary play acts as the source of children’s development to support
learning. Seen in the context of an increasing “play deficit” in the United States,
their training program makes an important contribution to understanding therelations between play and learning because it offers developed forms of play,
supports children’s play actions and coregulation with props such as play plans,and enriches children’s play experiences through excursions and incursions. The
results of our study also support these findings and show their relevance for an
Australian context. However, we need further research into how Conceptual
PlayWorlds supports the interconnections between imaginary play and children’sconceptual learning so that policy makers have more evidence of the value ofplay for learning and teachers have resources to support them with maintaining
play as foundational for learning.

Conclusion
The current historical and political call for greater cognitive content inkindergartens brings new challenges to teachers who support play-based learning. Bodrova and Leong (2019) argue that in the United States, “It has grown

325

326

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYharder and harder to persuade school administrators and even some classroom
teachers that learning through play is the right kind of learning—and often thebest kind of learning—for young children” (37). Similarly, Clerc-Georgy andMartin (2022) argue that in French-speaking schools in Switzerland, free playand collective learning are disappearing in the first years of school in favor ofprintouts taken from workbooks or downloads from the Internet. The results ofour study into how children and teachers in the first two years of school experience the play-based program of a Conceptual PlayWorld, with its focus on the
dual development of children’s imagination and conceptual learning, offers analternative for administrators and governments.
We know that governments generally want children to learn the concepts
detailed in curricula. But in Australia policy makers understand less well how
this can be done through children’s play for the foundational year of school.
Traditional views of child development that emphasize the age of the child aremirrored by age-related and compartmentalized curriculum knowledge is (e.g.,Australian Government 2022). But, a cultural-historical conception of development gives a different kind of reading of child development. Theorized play acts
as a source of a child’s development and as their leading activity in kindergarten.
The development of imagination results through rich play experiences (Vygotsky1998). As we argue through our research, a Conceptual PlayWorld supports theimagining of complex concepts found in mathematics and science curricula.
This paper, then, speaks directly to system level policy makers by showcasingthat concepts can be embedded in imaginary play to support children’s development and that children can experience mathematical situations as they solve
play problems through imagining solutions.
The results of our study also speak directly to teachers who are interested inevidence-informed practices that maintain play-based programs and in responding to government demands for the learning of concepts detailed in the curriculum. Our study found that in a Conceptual PlayWorld of the Secret Garden, thechildren embodied the drama of the play problem of helping Cousin Robin. We
saw through children’s play actions as astronaut characters with their play partners (including teacher astronauts) in Mission Control how they imagined theirvisual field to be something else. Vygotsky (1966) has theorized that throughimaginary situations children free themselves from situational constraints andchange the meaning of the objects they see—such as when a classroom becomes
Mission Control or when the outdoor climbing frame becomes NASA’s rocket
launch pad. Vygotsky (1966) also suggested that in imaginary situations children

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

can act and think more consciously, conceptually being a head taller than themselves, as seen in our study with the drawing of flight plans for a rocket launch
to solve the problem of how to rescue Cousin Robin on the far side of the moon.
We found that the imaginary play of the Conceptual PlayWorld offered these
possibilities to children, and we determined that when children express theirsolutions to the play problems (such as when Astronaut Mitch talked about why
the rocket launch failed), their everyday language finds support from their teachers in character using the language of mathematics and science. In other words,
the imaginary play was collectively experienced and, in this play, the children
had in their environment mathematical and scientific language to enrich theireveryday expressions. This is consistent with Vygotsky’s (1994) conception ofthat which you wish children to develop must already be in their environment
from the very beginning: In our study, this was made available by the teachers
when acting as play partners. As argued by Vygotsky (1966), play creates thiszone of proximal development.
Vygotsky (1998) also showed that learning is the dominant motive whenchildren begin school. This has direct relevance for understanding how thedevelopment of imagination conditions the development of memory as presented by Vygotsky in his theory of periodization in child development. As
Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2022) state, imaginary play “facilitates the distancing of immediate perception and the development and use of memory,thus allowing the development of the ability to act in a manner that is bothconscious and voluntary [abstract concepts: system-bound, decontextualized
and symbol-mediated thinking]” (8). Van Oers (2012) shows this throughthe context of an observation of a six-year-old who draws a train track, using
only lines to represent sleepers and declaring, “I don’t draw them all, it goeson like this.” Van Oers writes that this etcetera act “is an act of imagining
new instances that enables people to see the continuation of a series without
having to show all the individual instances per se” (151). He says, “Abstract
thinking is often an act of imagination” (151). Our study has shown how,under Vygotsky’s (1998) theorization of child development, in school playthe development of a child’s imagination resourced the child’s developmentof memory. For example, in Mission Control with its imagined but authentic
problem of the failed rocket launch, we saw everyday words used by Mitch to
explain his conception of the problem of propulsion, thrust, and weight. Imagining the problem gives possibilities over time for Mitch to take up the conceptual meaning of mathematical and scientific terms introduced in the play

327

328

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYby the teacher astronauts. There, in the hearing of terms used to explain theimagined problem, we suggest that this supports the development of memory,
because Mitch hears these terms when trying to solve the problem and because
these imaginary play moments are emotionally charged and dramatic. Thisis consistent with a cultural-historical conception of development in which
the environment has a “unique influence on pupils as it is refracted by theirinterpretations and emotional valorization of the situation” (van Oers 2012,142). In a cultural-historical view of child development, the social situationof play and the child’s leading activity to play are always theorized in unity
as their social situation of development. Conceptual PlayWorlds created new
pedagogical conditions in the school where both leading activities were acting in unity. That is, in a Conceptual PlayWorld, the children needed to workwithin a system of meaningful concepts when engaged in imaginary situations,and this in turn appeared to nourish their play intellectually and to support
learning. In conclusion, we suggest that play acts as the source of children’sdevelopment of mathematical thinking and that imagination appears to befoundational for supporting the development of mathematical education in
the first years of school.

References
Bergen, Doris. 2015. “Psychological Approaches to the Study of Play.” American Journalof Play 7:101–28.
Australian Government Department of Education. 2022. Belonging, Being, and Becoming:
The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia, Version 2, Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council.
Bodrova, Elena, and Deborah J. Leong. 2015. “Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian Views
on Children’s Play.” American Journal of Play 7:371–88.
———. 2019. “Making Play Smarter, Stronger, and Kinder: Lessons from Tools of the
Mind.” American Journal of Play 12:37–53.
Cheeseman, Jill, Andrea McDonough, and Dianne Golemac. 2017. “Investigating Children’s Thinking about Suspended Balances.” New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies 52:143–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-016-0073-9.
Cheeseman, Jill. 2019. “Young Children are Natural Inquirers: Posing and Solving
Mathematical Problems.” Waikato Journal of Education 24:11–22. https://doi.
org/10.15663/wje.v%vi%i.664.
Clerc-Georgy, Anne, and Daniel Martin. 2022. “The First Stages of Schooling: Contributions from Vygotsky’s Last Works.” Mind, Culture, and Activity. https://:doi.org

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools/10.1080/10749039.2022.2026971.
Correa-Chavez, Maricela, Rebeca Mejia-Arauz, and Barbara Rogoff, eds. 2015. Children
Learn by Observing and Contributing to Family and Community Endeavors: A Cultural Paradigm. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol. 49.
Curriculum Development Council, 2017. Kindergarten Curriculum Guide. Joyful Learning through Play Balanced Development All the Way Curriculum.” Education
Bureau, Hong Kong.
Davydov, Vasily V. 1990. Types of Generalization in Instruction. Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education, Vol. 2. Translated by Joan Teller.
Disney, Leigh, and Liang Li. 2022. “Above, Below, or Equal? Exploring Teachers’ Pedagogical Positioning in a Playworld Context to Teach Mathematical Concepts to Preschool Children.” Teaching and Teacher Education 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2022.103706.
Eberle, Scott G. 2014. “The Elements of Play: Toward a Philosophy and a Definition ofPlay.” American Journal of Play 6:214–33.
Eccles, Jacquelynne S. 2016. “Engagement: Where to Next?” Learning and Instruction
43:71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003.
Elkind, David. 2008. “The Power of Play: Learning What Comes Naturally.” American
Journal of Play 1:2–6.
Elkonin, Daniil. B. 2005. “The Psychology of Play.” Journal of Russian and East European
Psychology 43,1:11–21.
Fass, Stefan, Shu-chen Wu and Steffen Geiger 2017. “The Importance of Play in Early
Childhood Education: A Critical Perspective on Current Policies and Practices inGermany and Hong Kong.” Global Education Review 4:75–91.
Fleer, Marilyn. 2017. “Digital Role-Play: The Changing Conditions of Children’s Play in
Preschool Settings.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 24:3–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2016.1247456———. 2019. “Conceptual PlayWorlds as a Pedagogical Intervention: Supporting
the Learning and Development of the Preschool Child in Play-Based Setting.”
Obutchénie, 3:1–22. https://doi.org/10. 14393/OBv3n3.a2019-51704.
———. 2020. “A Tapestry of Playworlds: A Study into the Reach of Lindqvist’s Legacy
in Testing Times.” Mind, Culture, and Activity, 27:36–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1663215.
———. 2021. “How an Educational Experiment Creates Motivating Conditions forChildren to Role-Play a Child-initiated PlayWorld.” Oxford Review of Education
48:364–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.1988911.
Fleer, Marilyn, and Bert van Oers. 2018. “International Trends in Research: Redressing the North-South Balance in What Matters for Early Childhood Education
Research.” In International Handbook of Early Childhood Education, edited by
Marilyn Fleer and Bern van Oers, 1–30.
Goncu, Artin, and Suzanne Gaskins, eds. 2007. Play and Development: Evolutionary,Sociocultural, and Functional Perspectives.
Gopnik, Allison, and Caren M. Walker. 2013. “Considering Counterfactuals: The Rela-

329

330

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYtionship between Causal Learning and Pretend Play.” American Journal of Play
6:15–28.
Gray, Peter 2011. “The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Children andAdolescents.” American Journal of Play 3:443–64.
Hassinger-Das, Brenna, Jennifer M. Zosh, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta M. Golinkoff.
2018. “Playing to Learn Mathematics.” Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/pdf/complet/play-based-learning.
Hedegaard, Mariane. 2008. “The Educational Experiment.” In Studying Children: A
Cultural-Historical Approach, edited by Mariane Hedegaard and Marilyn Fleer,
181–201.
Henricks, Thomas. S. 2018. “Theme and Variation: Arranging Play’s Forms, Functions,and ‘Colors.’” American Journal of Play, 10:133–67.
Leontiev, Aleksei Nikolaevich. 1978. Activity, Consciousness, and Personality.
Li, Liang, and Leigh Disney. 2021. “Young Children’s Mathematical Problem Solving
and Thinking in a Playworld.” Mathematics Education Research Journal 35:23–34.
https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00373-y.
Lillard, Angeline S., Matthew D. Lerner, Emily J. Hopkins, Rebecca A. Dore, Eric D.
Smith, and Carolyn M. Palmquist. 2012. “The Impact of Pretend Play on Children’s Development: A Review of the Evidence.” Psychological Bulletin 139:1–34.
Lindqvist, Gunilla. 1995. The Aesthetics of Play: A Didactic Study of Play and Culture in
Preschools. Uppsala Studies in Education 62.
Ministry of Education (2012). 3–6岁儿童学习与发展指南 [Early Learning and Development Guidelines for Children Aged 3–6], Beijing Ministry of Education.
Nicolopoulou, Ageliki, and Hande Ilgaz. 2013. “What Do We Know about Pretend
Play and Narrative Development? A Response to Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins, Dore,
Smith, and Palmquist on ‘The Impact of Pretend Play on Children’s Development:
A Review of the Evidence.’” American Journal of Play 6:55–81.
Parten, Mildred. 1933. “Social Play among Preschool Children.” Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology 28:136-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0073939.
Piaget, Jean. 1962. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood.
Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, and Eva Johansson. 2006. “Play and Learning—Inseparable
Dimensions in Preschool Practice.” Early Child Development and Care 176:47–65.
Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid and Maj Asplund Carlsson. 2008. “The Playing LearningChild: Towards a Pedagogy of Early Childhood.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52:623–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497265.
Pyle, Angela, Martin A. Pyle, Jessica Prioletta, and Betül Alaca. 2020. “Portrayals of
Play-Based Learning Misalignments among Public Discourse, Classroom Realities, and Research.” American Journal of Play 13:53–86.
Pyle, Angela, and Erica Danniels. 2017. “A Continuum of Play-Based Learning: The
Role of the Teacher in Play-Based Pedagogy and the Fear of Hijacking Play.” Early
Education and Development 28:274–89.
Pyle, Angela, Christopher DeLuca, and Erica Danniels. 2017. “A Scoping Review of
Research on Play-Based Pedagogies in Kindergarten Education.” Review of Edu-

Are We Play-Proofing Preschools, Kindergartens, and Schools

cation 5:311–51.
Rogoff, Barbara. 2003. The Cultural Nature of Human Development.
Singer, Dorothy G., Jerome L. Singer, Heidi D’Agostino, and Raeka DeLong. 2009. “Children’s Pastimes and Play in Sixteen Nations: Is Free-Play Declining?” American
Journal of Play 1:283–312.
Smilansky, Sara. 1968. The Effects of Sociodramatic Play on Disadvantaged Pre-schoolChildren.
Sullivan, Peter, Janette Bobis, Ann Downton, Maggie Feng, Sally Hughes, Sharon Livy,
Melody McCormick, and James Russo. 2021. “An Instructional Model to Support
Planning and Teaching Student-Centered Structured Inquiry Lessons.” AustralianPrimary Mathematics Classroom 26:9–12.
van Oers, Bert. 2012. “Meaningful Cultural Learning by Imitative Participation: The
Case of Abstract Thinking in Primary School.” Human Development 55:136–58.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000339293.
———. 2013. “The Roots of Mathematising in Young Children’s Play.” In Early Mathematics Learning, edited by Ulrich Kortenkamp, Birgit Brandt, Christiane Benz, Gotz
Krummheuer, Silke Ladel, and Rose Vogel, 111–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781-4614-4678-1_8.
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1987. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of General Psychology. Vol. 1. Edited by Robert W. Rieber and Aaron S. Carton. Translated by
Norris Minick.
———. 1966. “Play and Its Role in the Mental Development of the Child.” Voprosy psikhologii [Problems of Psychology] 12:62–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2753/
RPO1061-040505036.
———. 1994. “The Problem of the Environment.” In The Vygotsky Reader. Edited byRenee van der Veer and Jaan Valsiner. Translated by Theresa Prout and Renee
van der Veer, 338–54.
———. 1997. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: The History of the Development ofHigher Mental Functions, Vol. 4. Edited by Robert W. Rieber. Translated by Marie.
J. Hall.
———. 1998. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Child Psychology, Vol. 5. Edited byRobert W. Rieber. Translated by Marie. J. Hall.
———. 2004. “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood.” Journal of Russian and East
European Psychology 42:7–97.
———. 2005. “Appendix. From the notes of L. S. Vygotsky for Lectures on the Psychologyof Preschool Children.” Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 43:90–97.
Wah, Alejandra 2020. “Cognitive Processes Underlying Play and Pretend Play: A Comparative Cross-Species Study on Degrees of Memory, Perception, Imagination, andConsciousness.” American Journal of Play 12:156–77.
Watt, Helen, M. G., Colin Carmichael, and Rosemary Callingham. 2017. “Students’ Engagement Profiles in Mathematics According to Learning Environment Dimensions: Developing an Evidence Base for Best Practice inMathematics Education.” School Psychology International 38:166–83. https://doi.

331

332

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

org/10.1177/0143034316688373.
Wood, Elizabeth A. 2014. “Free Choice and Free Play in Early Childhood Education:
Troubling the Discourse.” International Journal of Early Years Education 22:4–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.830562.
Wright, Talmadge J. 2018. “Liberating Human Expression: Work and Play or Work Versus Play.” American Journal of Play 11:3–25.