1. Question: what counts as mediation in role play

The question comes before any classroom scene. What counts as teacher mediation in role play in early childhood education, and what falls outside when the supposed support shrinks to a script, a prompt, a timer, or a character card. Role play here names sociodramatic play, pretend play, and dramatic play: children, especially from three to five, hold together a state of affairs the room does not contain. To mediate is to keep that fiction as the children’s enterprise, to enter if entry lengthens the plot, and to leave if presence turns it into recitation.

Three confusions get in the way. Direction: the teacher brings the theme, assigns parts, and corrects the line that “was not the one.” Absence: nobody watches the corner and anything that happens is filed as successful play. Fidelity to the product: there is support if the group resembles the script, if the dashboard adds minutes, or if the card is full. Direction kidnaps authorship. Absence does not hold a silent part. Fidelity measures obedience to a text written outside.

The question has an age and a place: the kindergarten, not university role-play and not memorized theatre. Between three and five the world is built with poor objects and can shift from shop to hospital without the plan’s permission. Demanding the exact line, a minimum of minutes, or a preassigned character may be another activity; it is not mediation of role play. Four hypotheses follow, not a rubric: observe before entering, expand without taking authorship, care who speaks and who commands, and subordinate objects and technology to the fiction. The literature from 2021 to 2026 does not put the question in these words. It surrounds it. This essay reads it in order to answer it.

2. State of the art: pretend play and the teaching craft

The field no longer debates whether dramatic play “matters” in the abstract. It debates effects, forms of fiction, agency, and justice inside the role, and, with less agreement, what the adult does while that happens. Chae and Bae (2022) bring together 28 studies published from 2000 to 2021 and estimate, under a random-effects model, an overall effect size of 1.425. By the Cohen criterion they invoke, that magnitude reads as very large. The highest point among the outcomes they examine is emotional development (1.846), followed by social development and language; contrasts among outcomes, by age, and by number of sessions are reported as non-significant. Meta-analytic finding, not recomputed here. It is a reason to take dramatic play seriously. Activities that are merely named drama do not inherit that 1.425, nor does a dashboard that treats it as a target.

The form of the fiction is differentiated, though without coefficients in the open material of this record. Trawick-Smith, DeLapp, McAuliffe, and Pike (2026) study the association between solitary pretend play, social pretend play, and inhibitory control in preschool. Empirical finding bounded by the title. No correlations are fabricated. The title forbids treating all pretend play as the same behaviour. A minute-counter adds the solitary stretch and the social stretch and files them as one “symbolic play.” Design inference. Whoever mediates would need to see which form is under way before entering. Inhibitory control is that study’s variable, not the argument of this review.

In another population, Vyshedskiy and Khokhlovich (2023) follow, by caregiver survey, 7,069 young children with autism spectrum disorder, with quarterly records over three years. Pretend play is associated, in their report, with 1.9 times more improvement in combinatorial receptive language and 1.4 times more in expressive language (both p < 0.0001), and 1.3 times more in sensory awareness (p = 0.0009). Each language association holds when the other is controlled. Pretend play does not explain a significant share of sociability or of health. Caregiver-survey finding, not a classroom finding. Design inference, kept separate. If fiction matters for language in that population, the relevant practice is to sustain it, not to turn the corner into a drill. The kindergarten does not become a clinical device by this citation.

Agency and justice are properties of the scene, not labels fixed in advance. Yesil, Erdiller Yatmaz, and Metindogan (2025) follow a school year in a classroom of five-year-olds, with prolonged observation and interviews. Building “games with rules” was a marked component of that play culture, and uninterrupted sociodramatic play gave occasions for agency and for acting as social actors. Teachers enter as guides and facilitators. Empirical finding. Chen and Kacerek (2022) observe leadership and followership among 20 three- and four-year-olds from racial or ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, in two mixed classrooms; 70 percent had Spanish as a language. Ten video observations. The four most visible leaders were four-year-old girls, more advanced cognitively, socially, and linguistically: one with a dominating cast and three with a directing cast. The four most visible followers —two boys and two girls— were characterized as complaisant conformists. With peers from similar backgrounds, the group sustained sociodramatic play. Local finding. A gender law of leadership is not generalized. What is kept is that the role distributes authority.

Emen-Parlatan and Yaşar (2023) read dramatic play with critical discourse analysis and a Marxist-feminist lens. They order gender discourses as stereotypes, false consciousness, inequality in production, and power relations. Inequalities of context show up in themes, parts, and materials; at times children challenge them by using the dramatic structure. Qualitative finding; the abstract gives no N, and none is invented. Kalessopoulou, Sidiropoulou, Sotiropoulou, and Psatha (2024) explore social-justice awareness in shopping pretend play, from two to six, in the nursery and in the museum, from educators’ narratives and the capability approach. They recover payment and budgeting, food and consumerism, and cooperation in running the shop. The nursery seemed to allow more agency and a firmer grasp of justice than the museum; adult prompts and an agenda of active citizenship were part of that opening. Finding about the object, with no child N in the abstract. Agustina, Hartati, and Maelani (2025) review 30 articles out of 65 retrieved (2013–2024). They attribute to dramatic play a contribution to empathy, social competence, and awareness of social roles —embodying occupations and taking in cooperation, justice, and responsibility— and they ask that it be embedded in the curriculum, with the teacher facilitating value-oriented experiences. Review finding. Facilitating value-oriented play is not dictating the moral line.

Hadjipanteli (2022) offers a framework that must stay in its place: it does not observe a three-to-five kindergarten. It studies playfulness as a virtuous disposition in a drama course of initial primary-teacher education, with a case and a narrative inquiry. Internal and external conditions, together with flow experiences, constituted that disposition; in that space parrhesia, friendship, and self-knowledge grew. Initial-education framework, not an infant classroom. It denies that the quality of a role is fidelity to a text. Almost none of these works evaluates an app, a prompt, or a minute-counter: they are not product trials.

3. Method: PRISMA-lite review, 2021–2026

The method is a PRISMA-lite review, not a systematic review with a flow diagram, and screening counts are not feigned. The window is 2021–2026. The universe is this kit’s verified bibliography, with DOIs checked in Crossref: 28 records. This essay argues with 24 and leaves the others out by scope. To say that four hundred records were screened would fabricate a method. If the abstract was not open, the prose stays with the object of the title and says so. If it was open, the figures —samples, hours, effect sizes, p values— are the authors’, not a recalculation.

What enters is work on pretend, sociodramatic, or dramatic play, on PlayWorld, or on teacher participation in that scene, useful to the question. The journals of the verified file were preferred —Early Childhood Education Journal, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Early Years, International Journal of Early Childhood, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Learning and Instruction, Teaching and Teacher Education, International Journal of Play— plus Chae and Bae (2022) and Kim and Lee (2022). Empirical finding names a scene or an association that was studied. Framework names a conceptual proposal. Design inference names a consequence for judging scripts, prompts, dashboards, and checklists that those articles did not try as products.

Outdoor play, risky play, cooperation as a general method, and guided play as a general pedagogy stay out. Hollenstein and Vogt (2024) enter only because they study digital education through guided pretend play, not that general model. Situated translanguaging, family PlayWorld with children under three, university role-play, and dramatic play read as a posthuman ontology also stay out. There was no double screening and no scored risk of bias. If the online date and the year on the kit record do not match, the citation follows the record. Volume and pages come from Crossref.

4. Findings: teacher competencies that support play

The competence this literature describes is not a scored list of micro-skills. It is a sober portrait: the educator contributes to imaginative play under conditions that can be named, that contribution can be formed, participation has forms that help and forms that hinder, and restricting free play is not a management detail.

Sutherland-Stevens, Chilman, Lilly, Ledger, and Burritt (2026) review what early childhood educators contribute to imaginative play. They search Scopus, PubMed, ERIC, and APA PsycNET, retrieve 14 articles from 2008 to 2021, and read them by meta-ethnography. Facilitators: environments that foster play, adult participation, and scaffolding of imaginative experiences. Barriers: roles imposed by the adult, restrictive play, and a lack of involvement that sustains. Attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy shaped how educators contributed. Scoping-review finding. Design inference. Imposing the part before the scene, or scoring improvisation, resembles those barriers. The work calls for professional development —including a part they assign to occupational therapy— and for more study in lower-income centres. This essay does not move mediation to another profession.

The craft is learned in drama, not in software. Michaelides and Loizou (2024) start from the zone of proximal development and argue that adult involvement is decisive for children’s play skills. A drama-based programme lasts 13 weeks. Thirteen in-service teachers attend; four provide the data, with video and an observation tool used by researchers and participants. Three skills emerge: role enactment, interactive dialogue, and interactive dialogue with role enactment, tied by the authors to improvisation. They propose a zone of proximal action, an adult-led margin of what the teacher can do to sustain play. Empirical finding, data from four teachers. That leadership is not the external script: the skills are enactment and dialogue. Design inference. Forming them in drama is not the same as a prompt pack.

Participation is not one thing. Young, Edwards, and Nuttall (2024) study four teachers in Melbourne who each week ran playworlds with the researcher in their rooms. They argue for a dual affect: teacher outside the play and co-player inside it, so as to co-create the narrative. They identify a third affect, that of public performer, which made it harder to hold both positions and shrank the improvised trajectory. Empirical finding. Design inference. A fidelity score, or a scene written to be well executed, pushes toward that third affect. The dual affect needs room not to know, inside the fiction.

Cheung (2026) places strategies for imaginative play in a sociocultural perspective on children’s participation. The abstract is not open. Framework and object of the title. No catalogue is invented: the strategy belongs to the teacher, not to a software parameter. Utami, Fleer, and Li (2023) argue that the player role of the teacher in the playworld creates new conditions for learning. Framework, object of the title. Without an open abstract there is no finer mechanism. If the title is taken seriously, the condition arises because the adult plays and hands authorship back. Whoever prompts a generated script is not in that role.

Knowing not to restrict too much has an empirical comparison here. Kim and Lee (2022) ask about the effect of restricting free play on the level of pretend play. Restriction includes how many children may share a zone, freedom with toys, space, and time limits. From 90 teachers surveyed in Korea they select two with high limitation and two with low limitation, and observe the 60 children in those rooms. Under low limitation there was more frequent pretend play, a higher degree of make-believe actions and themes, and more diverse interest areas. Empirical finding; the abstract gives no effect size. Design inference. Closing the theme, timing the corner, or demanding the line are kin to the restriction that here coincided with less fiction.

The competence of justice is that reading, not a separate module. Form of fiction, leadership, gender discourse, the shop, and agency are already in the previous section. Facilitating, as Agustina et al. (2025) ask, resembles the skills of Michaelides and Loizou (2024) and the dual affect of Young et al. (2024), and resembles little the imposed role that Sutherland-Stevens et al. (2026) list as a barrier. Hadjipanteli (2022) recalls that the adult’s playful disposition was constituted inside drama, not on a card.

5. Findings: PlayWorld, props and technology on stage

The second family describes an architecture: a problem travels inside an imaginary situation held by the group and by the adult. Conceptual PlayWorld is not an app. Fleer, Fragkiadaki, and Rai (2021) study collective imagination as a source of change in professional practice, in the motivated conditions of that model, with teacher education as the scene. Framework and object of the title; with no open abstract, no sample is invented. The change of craft named in the title is born of collective imagination, not of a manual of lines.

Stephenson, Fleer, Fragkiadaki, and Rai (2023) ask about the conditions the model creates for teaching STEM through play. There is a workshop and implementation in two centres; the abstract reports interviews with four teachers. The shift they sustain is in motive orientation toward intentional STEM teaching in play, with more felt confidence and competence. Empirical finding, with no child N in the abstract. Teaching through play is not interrupting play to dictate the lesson. Wang, Ma, Li, and Fleer (2024), in a public kindergarten of a Chinese provincial capital, with one focus teacher and 28 children aged four to five, report a change in positioning and an engineering pedagogy inside collective imaginary play. Empirical finding. Ma, Fleer, Li, and Wang (2023), with the same age and the concept of repeating patterns, gather 8.54 hours of video and 5.75 of interviews: the focus child’s play motives, as he took part and solved problems in the fiction, stimulated mathematical motives. Cultural-historical finding.

Chen, Disney, and Li (2026) take the model to the transition to school. In an Australian primary school, with 20 children aged five to six and one focus teacher, they observe that she practises another mathematical pedagogy —PlayWorld itself— to sustain learning. Finding of pedagogical change, with no score gain in the abstract. The age steps outside the three-to-five focus. Ramunno, Fleer, Rai, and Suryani (2026) use the model in playgroups in Victoria: 16 families, 37.16 hours over ten months, three episodes about whales. The drama and the collective play created conditions for science; imitation was fed by collaboration among caregiver, pedagogue-researcher, and child. Another setting, not the full-day classroom. Design inference. Engineering, mathematics, and science travel inside the fiction. A pack that generates “the play of the day” reverses the source.

Technical objects enter by another door. Wang and Black Delfin (2024) study non-functional cell phones as “super props” in two classrooms of four- and five-year-olds. Children who bring them into sociodramatic play expand language, lengthen plots, create characters, and try ways of speaking, including cultural rules of language. Empirical finding. The phone is a prop, not a minute sensor and not a supplier of lines. Delfin and Wang (2023), in two classes of four-year-olds, study “technologies” that do not really operate. They see expansion of abstract thought and of dual representation: symbolic understanding, higher mental functions before the pretended device, and a cognitive back-and-forth while “using” it. Qualitative finding. The direction runs from plot to object. A prompt that delivers the narrative device already solved runs the other way, and the benefit the authors attribute to “incorporating technology” refers, in their design, to pretend technology.

Hollenstein and Vogt (2024) study unplugged digital education through guided pretend play. Fifteen teachers implement it with children aged four to six; the play is filmed. Whoever enters and guides from within does so as play leader or as co-player: modelling by assigning a task or thinking aloud, and scaffolding learning about digitalization. Co-playing and leading from within sustained a prolonged joint focus and children’s agency. They call that form “sustained shared playing.” Empirical finding. That name is not folded here into an episode counter, and guided play is not reopened as a general pedagogy. Design inference. Guiding from within, while caring for agency, is not an app that writes the play from outside. The difference is the place from which one speaks.

6. Anonymized classroom case (ages 3–5, dramatic play)

The vignette is a design illustration: no centre, city, or teacher, and no field notebook from this review. It asks whether the criteria below can be recognized at ages three to five. It estimates no effects. It adds no sample, no effect size, and no correlation.

There is a mixed group and a stable corner: cloth, boxes, loose utensils, a cardboard phone. There is no app and no character list. The duration is a stretch of the morning, not a timed result. The children open the plot. A clinic folds into a shop: whoever arrives ill also buys. A girl assigns parts and leaves a younger boy as the baby, with no speaking turn. The teacher first watches the odd rule and who does not speak.

She then enters as a patient who does not know the rules and asks to have them explained. The group invents a waiting room; she dictates no lines and does not return the scene to the week’s theme. The cardboard phone calls a grandmother, and the silent boy receives, inside the fiction, the task of giving notice. The adult then withdraws. No gain in language, no change in inhibitory control, no settled justice, and no exportable gesture are claimed. What is recognized is a mediation: observe, co-play, return a voice without breaking the world. With an app of “the visit to the doctor” and lines already assigned, the clinic-shop would have had nowhere to begin.

7. Discussion: criteria for genuine mediation

What counts as mediation is the craft that holds the shared fictional world. What does not count is the artifact that replaces it. The four criteria are design hypotheses. They are not a validated norm, they have no cut score, and they must not become a rubric of fidelity to themselves: that would repeat the error under criticism. Each separates what the study showed from what this text infers for the kindergarten.

  1. Observe before intervening. Sutherland-Stevens et al. (2026) place the imposed role and restrictive play among the barriers, and adult participation among the facilitators. Imposing the part is a failure to have watched the part the group was already inventing. Kim and Lee (2022) show that less limitation of zone, toys, space, and time coincided with more fiction. Trawick-Smith et al. (2026) separate solitary and social fiction: without that reading, entry is a blind choice. Young et al. (2024) add what to watch in oneself: if the adult is about to become a public performer, improvisation shrinks. Design inference. Observation separates participation that facilitates from the barrier of the imposed role. It is not a scale item.
  2. Expand the plot without kidnapping the play. Michaelides and Loizou (2024) tie enactment and dialogue to improvisation: to expand is to talk inside the role, not to replace talk with a text. Young et al. (2024) show that the dual affect co-creates and that the public performer shrinks the narrative. Yesil et al. (2025) find agency when sociodramatic play is not interrupted. Hollenstein and Vogt (2024) leave a useful complication: leading or co-playing from within sustained focus and agency. Design inference. Leading from within is not kidnapping. Kidnapping is writing the play outside, or taking the ending the group was about to invent. Utami et al. (2023) name the player role; with no open abstract, nothing further is attributed. Fleer et al. (2021) place collective imagination as the source of professional change. Legitimate expansion lengthens a plot that still has child authors.
  3. Include voices and care for justice in roles. In Chen and Kacerek (2022) visible leadership fell to four four-year-old girls and followership to four conformists, in a group marked by racial or ethnic minority status, economic disadvantage, and a Spanish-speaking majority. The datum does not prescribe another country: it says that sociodramatic play distributes voice and authority, and that this can be seen. Emen-Parlatan and Yaşar (2023) show gender spoken in themes, parts, and materials, sometimes challenged from inside the structure. A list made in planning arrives late or freezes that discourse. Kalessopoulou et al. (2024) see payment, food, consumption, and cooperation in the shop, with more agency in the nursery than in the museum. Agustina et al. (2025) ask that value be facilitated, not dictated. Design inference. Returning a silent voice is done inside the fiction, with a task the world already admits. Conflict over authority is material of the plot: it is cared for without kidnapping the scene and without leaving exclusion untouched.
  4. Put props and technology at the service of the shared fiction. The phone that does not work lengthens plots and language because it enters as a prop (Wang and Black Delfin, 2024). Pretend technology pushes abstraction and dual representation when the group operates it in role (Delfin and Wang, 2023). Unplugged digital education happens when the teacher guides from within (Hollenstein and Vogt, 2024). Engineering, patterns, transition mathematics, and marine life appear when the concept travels in the drama (Wang et al., 2024; Ma et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2026; Ramunno et al., 2026; Stephenson et al., 2023). Design inference. A prop serves if it calls, charges, or pretends a device inside the world. It stops serving if the app brings the line, the prompt writes the play, the dashboard counts minutes, the list freezes the character, or the score punishes the detour. Many minutes and an impeccable execution do not turn that substitution into mediation. Material counts as support only when subordinated to the group’s fiction. Not every screen is declared illicit.

The four hold together. Observing without being able to enter leaves a voice out. Entering without looking produces the imposed role. Caring for justice by breaking the shop kidnaps the plot. A phone used as a timer sets the object against the fiction. Participation is conditional: co-player when it helps, and that “when” is decided by looking. None of this was tested as a package. Turning it into a compliance checklist builds the artifact the fourth criterion rejects.

8. Contrast: script apps versus co-play

The contrast sets two places from which the plot comes. In co-play it is born in the group, and the adult may enter as co-player or as leader from within (Hollenstein and Vogt, 2024; Young et al., 2024; Utami et al., 2023). In the app it is born in the product. There is no trial of a particular app: the comparison is one of design.

That app collides with the barriers in Sutherland-Stevens et al. (2026), with the agency Yesil et al. (2025) saw in uninterrupted sociodramatic play, and with the improvised dialogue of Michaelides and Loizou (2024). The co-play defended here is revocable. The public performer shrinks improvisation, and there are mornings when mediating is watching and not entering. Always entering can also kidnap.

The prompt pack moves authorship further outside: not even the teacher writes the play. It reverses the direction of Delfin and Wang (2023) and of Wang and Black Delfin (2024), where the group pretends a device and from there lengthens plot and language, and the source Fleer et al. (2021), Wang et al. (2024), and Ma et al. (2023) place in collective imagination. Hollenstein and Vogt (2024) belong on the co-play side: digital education inside the fiction, with the teacher inside. A dialogue generator is not that study.

The dashboard treats duration as if it were the practice. In Kim and Lee (2022) limited time went with the restriction associated with less fiction; Trawick-Smith et al. (2026) separate solitary and social fiction; Chae and Bae (2022) estimate effects on development, not on minutes. The counter can rise while the group recites. The character list arrives before gender discourse (Emen-Parlatan and Yaşar, 2023), before observed leadership (Chen and Kacerek, 2022), and before the agency that depends on the setting (Kalessopoulou et al., 2024). The fidelity score rewards repetition and pushes toward the third affect Young et al. (2024) saw as a hindrance. Co-play is not another product. It is the craft that drama-based education treats as learnable and that PlayWorld treats as collective imagination with an adult able to play.

9. Limits

The review argues with 24 records from a file of 28. There is no screening flow and no scored risk of bias. The 1.425 of Chae and Bae (2022), the ratios reported by Vyshedskiy and Khokhlovich (2023), and the direction in Kim and Lee (2022) are figures from those works: heterogeneity and transfer to Spanish-speaking kindergartens were not audited here. Trawick-Smith et al. (2026), Utami et al. (2023), Fleer et al. (2021), and Cheung (2026) are cited by title, because the abstract was not open. Chae and Bae cover 2000–2021, Sutherland-Stevens et al. articles from 2008–2021, and Agustina et al. (2025) from 2013: they enter for what they say about play, not because their whole base falls inside this window.

The PlayWorld cited here is a cultural-historical tradition, often in linked teams, with Chinese kindergartens, Australian centres, and a playgroup of 16 families. It is not a universal model. Several sizes are small: four teachers in Melbourne (Young et al., 2024), data from four in a programme of thirteen (Michaelides and Loizou, 2024), fifteen teachers in a qualitative study of digital education (Hollenstein and Vogt, 2024). Hadjipanteli (2022) is initial teacher education. Vyshedskiy and Khokhlovich (2023) do not observe teacher mediation, and fiction did not explain sociability or health. The vignette is an illustration. The four criteria are hypotheses. App, prompt, dashboard, and list are classes, not tested products. No Latin American sample is invented. Outdoor play, risky play, cooperation as a general method, guided play as a general pedagogy, situated translanguaging, and family PlayWorld with children under three were left out on purpose. When the online year and the record’s year do not match, the citation uses the record. Date of writing: 29 September 2026.

10. Conclusions

What counts as mediation in role play is the craft of holding a shared fictional world. It includes observing before imposing a part, because the imposed role and restriction appear as barriers and low limitation coincided with more fiction. It includes expanding from within —enactment, dialogue, co-play— without becoming the performer of someone else’s text. It includes reading who commands and what gender or what justice the scene is saying, so as to return voices without breaking the world. It includes pretend props, and engineering, mathematics, or science, when they travel inside the fiction.

A script app, a prompt pack for digital theatre, a dashboard of minutes, or a character list do not constitute support for symbolic play if situated observation, plot expansion, care for conflict and for voices, open materials, and entry as a co-player only when it helps are missing. The fidelity score rewards repetition and punishes improvisation. The path the literature does show is drama-based education, the dual affect, and a collective imagination that remains the source. The four criteria serve to design the kindergarten and to refuse the package. They are not a scale. Between three and five the fictional world still has authors. Mediation is the way of not taking them away.

Laboratorio Editorial de NEXTECH.IA / Ingeniero Mitre

References

  1. Agustina, W., Hartati, S., & Maelani, R. S. M. (2025). Dramatic play in early childhood education: An interdisciplinary reconstructionist perspective on cultivating social awareness. Atfaluna Journal of Islamic Early Childhood Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.32505/atfaluna.v8i1.10548
  2. Chae, Y. R., & Bae, Y. M. (2022). A meta-analysis on the effects of young children’s dramatic play. Early Childhood Education Research & Review, 26(4), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.32349/ecerr.2022.8.26.4.325
  3. Chen, H., Disney, L., & Li, L. (2026). Embracing imaginary play: A pedagogical shift in supporting children’s mathematical transition to school through the intervention of Conceptual PlayWorld. Early Childhood Education Journal, 54(4), 2447–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-02020-8
  4. Chen, J. J., & Kacerek, C. R. (2022). Leaders and followers during sociodramatic play: A study of racial/ethnic minority preschool children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 36(3), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2021.1960939
  5. Cheung, C. Y. (2026). A sociocultural perspective on children’s participation in learning through play: Teachers’ strategies for imaginative play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2026.2678940
  6. Delfin, A. B., & Wang, W. (2023). The influence of pretend ‘technologies’ on children’s cognitive development in symbolic play. International Journal of Play, 12(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2023.2235474
  7. Emen-Parlatan, M., & Yaşar, M. (2023). Preschool children’s discourses on gender during dramatic play from critical perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(2), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2022.2098996
  8. Fleer, M., Fragkiadaki, G., & Rai, P. (2021). Collective imagination as a source of professional practice change: A cultural-historical study of early childhood teacher professional development in the motivated conditions of a Conceptual PlayWorld. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, Article 103455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103455
  9. Hadjipanteli, A. (2022). Playfulness as a virtuous disposition: Its affinity with dramatic play and aretaic practice. International Journal of Play, 11(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2022.2136469
  10. Hollenstein, L., & Vogt, F. (2024). Digital education through guided pretend play. Learning and Instruction, 93, Article 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101945
  11. Kalessopoulou, D., Sidiropoulou, T., Sotiropoulou, E., & Psatha, F. (2024). Exploring social justice awareness in young children’s shopping pretend play at ECEC settings and museums. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2023.2227366
  12. Kim, H., & Lee, G. (2022). The effects of teacher’s restriction of children’s free play on children’s pretend play. Pacific Early Childhood Education Research Association, 16(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.17206/apjrece.2022.16.1.31
  13. Ma, Y., Fleer, M., Li, L., & Wang, Y. (2023). A cultural-historical study of how a conceptual playworld creates conditions for personally meaningful mathematics in the Chinese kindergarten context. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(6), 850–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2023.2200020
  14. Michaelides, A., & Loizou, E. (2024). The development of early childhood teachers’ sociodramatic and imaginative play skills through a drama-based professional development program. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(6), 994–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2024.2369515
  15. Ramunno, O., Fleer, M., Rai, P., & Suryani, A. (2026). Playful STEM learning: A cultural-historical analysis of a child’s motive orientation within a Conceptual PlayWorld. International Journal of Early Childhood, 58(1), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-025-00451-3
  16. Stephenson, T., Fleer, M., Fragkiadaki, G., & Rai, P. (2023). Teaching STEM through play: Conditions created by the conceptual PlayWorld model for early childhood teachers. Early Years, 43(4–5), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.2019198
  17. Sutherland-Stevens, N. A., Chilman, L. B., Lilly, K., Ledger, S. P., & Burritt, L. (2026). Unlocking imaginative play: A scoping review investigating early childhood educators’ contributions towards imaginative play. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-026-02297-3
  18. Trawick-Smith, J., DeLapp, J., McAuliffe, M., & Pike, D. (2026). Solitary and social pretend play: Associations with the inhibitory control of preschool children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 54(4), 2235–2241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-02027-1
  19. Utami, A. D., Fleer, M., & Li, L. (2023). The ‘player’ role of the teacher in playworld creates new conditions for children’s learning and development. International Journal of Early Childhood, 55(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-022-00333-y
  20. Vyshedskiy, A., & Khokhlovich, E. (2023). Pretend play predicts language development in young children with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Play, 12(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2023.2235472
  21. Wang, W., & Black Delfin, A. (2024). Cell phones as ‘super props’: Children’s language development in sociodramatic play. Early Years, 44(3–4), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2023.2198170
  22. Wang, Y., Ma, Y., Li, L., & Fleer, M. (2024). Conceptual PlayWorld: Creating motivating conditions for new kindergarten practices in China to support engineering education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(3), 522–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2023.2266784
  23. Yesil, R., Erdiller Yatmaz, Z., & Metindogan, A. (2025). Exploring children’s play culture and game construction: Role of sociodramatic play in supporting agency. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53(3), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01621-5
  24. Young, S., Edwards, S., & Nuttall, J. (2024). Teacher participation in young children’s dramatic play. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 22(4), 598–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x241258604