Interpretations of What Vygotsky Brings to Play and its Role in Development / Interpretaciones sobre la contribución de Vygotski al juego y su papel en el desarrollo

Introduction

In 1933, Vygotsky wrote a text on the role of play in child development. This text laid the foundations of a new paradigm, not only for understanding and studying play but also for illustrating what some authors call Vygotsky’s non-classical psychology (Kravtsov & Maximov, 2014). So today, many authors refer back to this text to defend, question or justify the role of play in school, and in this contribution to the Special Issue, we propose to analyze these understandings of what Vygotsky brings to bear upon this subject. In order to accomplish this, we have selected, from among the most often cited in the field of early childhood education, authors who refer to Vygotsky and more particularly to the text on the role of play. This contribution does not claim to be exhaustive, either from the point of view of the authors selected or from the point of view of the texts chosen. Amongst the various texts produced by these authors, we favored the most recent ones, those which contain the word “play” in their title: Bodrova and Leong (2015), Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2022), Fleer (2009, 2017), Pramling et al. (2019b), Smirnova (2017), Smolucha and Smolucha (2021), Siraj-Blatchford (2009), and Van Oers (2013, 2014). This analysis aims to clarify what Vygotsky brings to play and its role in development, comparatively reading these different authors. This will make it possible to identify the points of convergence, complementarity, and tension between the various understandings proposed.

After a brief presentation of the specificities of the selected texts, we will cross-reference the definitions of play by the authors. These definitions will be completed by the analysis of the references to the central concepts related to play in Vygotsky. The link between play and imagination, as well as that between play and the zone of proximal development, will then be queried. Finally, after having discussed the question of the development of play, we will end by identifying the pedagogical tracks proposed by the various authors in connection with the place of play at school. To complete our analysis, we have sometimes, in this last part, called upon texts by the same authors dealing more specifically with the relationship between play and learning and pedagogical paths linked to play at school.

A Few General Observations

Before going into the details of the understandings proposed by the different authors, it is interesting to note their common points. All deal with play from a cultural-historical perspective. In this sense, play is defined, discussed, explained, in its relationship with the learning and development of the child. For all of them, play is a cultural activity. Finally, all discuss play from the point of view of teaching, with some nuance between the teaching of play and the use of play in teaching. Consequently, these authors either affirm or question the role of adults in the development of play or in the relationship between play and conceptual learning.

On the other hand, these authors differ on the characteristics of play that they favor. All deal with the imaginary situation at the very basis of play, as well as with object substitution.

However, only half of them (Bodrova & Leong, 2015; Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Smirnova, 2017; Van Oers, 2013) centrally consider the question of roles. Finally, Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2022) deal with the question of the rules to which children submit and Van Oers (2013) analyzes and categorizes the types of rules that appear in play. We will come back to these dimensions further below.

Another difference relates to the other texts by Vygotsky to which the authors refer. Indeed, in addition to the text on the role of play in child development (1933/2022; 1933/2016), all authors refer to at least one other text by Vygotsky. The most frequently cited text (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Fleer, 2019; Pramling et al., 2019b; Siraj-Blatchford, 2009; Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021) is “Imagination and creative activity in childhood” (Vygotsky, 1930). This may be explained in particular by the fact that in this study, Vygotsky deals with the relationship between the development of the imagination and play. The second most referenced writing, cited by four authors (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Marinova, 2012; Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021; Van Oers, 2013) is Thinking and Speech (Vygotsky, 1934/1985). Other texts are cited but only by two or three authors. In connection with the question of play or early childhood, note that Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2021) as well as Bodrova and Leong (2015) cite Psychology of art (1925/1972), Smirnova (2017) and Fleer (2009, 2019) refer to Vygotsky’s notes about play (1933/2022; 1933/2016), Smolucha and Smolucha (2021) and Bodrova and Leong (2015) cite the prehistory of writing (Vygotsky, 1928/1931/2014), and Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2021), Smolucha and Smolucha (2021) as well as Bodrova and Leong (2015) refer to History of the development of higher psychic functions- (1928–1931/1997). Finally, we note that only Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2021) establish links between play and the text on learning at preschool age (Vygotsky, 1935/1995).

In addition to Vygotsky’s texts, the authors refer to other pioneers of the cultural-historical perspective. This is particularly the case for the notion of leading activity that the authors borrow from Leontiev (1981). For the latter, the leading activity is, for a given age stage, the one that would be most likely to generate major developmental gains, the activation of new mental processes and the restructuring of old ones. The main activity for children aged three to seven is pretend play. On this subject, Vygotsky (1933/2022; 1933/2016) speaks of a leading line of development. It is not a predominant form of activity at this age but a driver that is a source of development in preschool children. The other most frequently cited author is El’Konin (2005), on the issue of object substitution (Smirnova, 2017; Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021), on the types of play that mark out play development (Van Oers, 2013), and on the construction and justification of a theory of play development in the form of stages (Bodrova & Leong, 2015).

Finally, the most important differences between the authors are linked to their conceptions of the role of play in development and even more their conceptions of the development of play itself. Some consider play as an activity, a stage in the development of the child, whereas others view play as a context for learning. Still others put these two functions of play together for cohabitation. The perspectives defended in these ways will have consequences for the educational proposals in connection with play in preschool education as well as on the role of the adult in the development and/or the use of play at school which the authors have to make.

Definition of Play From a Cultural-Historical Perspective

Referring to Vygotsky (1933/2022; 1933/2016), Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2021) define play (make-believe) as an imaginary situation created by one or more children. They choose to invest it with roles, cast themselves as actors, and adopt and interpret characters which they can then decide to change. They elaborate and apply an ensemble of rules for action that correspond to the roles as they have understood them. They act according to the roles chosen and thus impose on themselves the constraints linked to those roles. In play, children also assign functions to the objects they use and change them. Make-believe is a cultural activity that promotes the appropriation of cultural tools.

We find the essence of this definition in Smirnova (2017), who characterizes the imaginary situation more specifically. This includes a scenario, roles, interactions, objects, a sequence of actions and a space in which to unfold them. She adds that play is not a cognitive or intellectual activity. It is a practical activity of the child always connected with the child’s interests and emotions. The imaginary situation does not exist so much in the head of the child as in the actions deployed in play.

In Fleer (2009, 2011), play is also the result of the creation of an imaginary situation in which children change the meanings of objects and actions. She adds that children move in and out of the imaginary situation and navigate between the real world and the make-believe world. We find this idea in Pramling et al. (2019b), for whom there is “as is” and “as if” in play as in other activities. For Van Oers (2013), play is based on an imaginary situation created by children. This author also places it in a cultural perspective. For him, play is the product of cultural processes (human decisions, cultural values, and understandings), and he sees it as a cultural activity. This corresponds to a specific format based on three parameters: the actor’s engagement, the rules (implicit and explicit), and the degree of freedom. Marinova (2012) adds a universal dimension concerning the production of play. Thus, “all the children of the world and of all times use the same processes to build play, that is to say the object substitution, the role and the scenario” (op cit., p. 6).

Not all authors define play. Referring to Wittgenstein (1953/2004), Pramling et al (2019b) even consider it indefinable, although they admit family-like resemblances between the various activities called play. Other authors, while not defining it, start out their treatment of play from what it promotes in terms of development (Bodrova & Leong, 2015; Siraj-Blatchford, 2009; Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021). More particularly, Bodrova and Leong (2015), in reference to El’Konin (2005), characterize play in stages that go from immature to mature play.

Whether or not they define play, the authors all agree on its importance in the development of the child and qualify it as a “leading activity” between three and seven years old. We shall return to these dimensions of play dealt with more particularly by each of them below.

Core Play Concepts

The different concepts related to pretend play that appear in Vygotsky’s text (1933/2022; 1933/2016) are more or less taken up, invoked, or problematized in the texts selected for this contribution.

The creation of an imaginary situation is central for many authors. In synthesizing what the various authors bring to it, the starting point and the essential dimension of play is the creation of an imaginary situation (Bodrova & Leong, 2015; Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Fleer, 2009; Pramling et al., 2019b) which makes it possible to act from a thought (Smirnova, 2017) and to act in an original recreation of reality, an imaginary situation, (Marinova, 2012). In their play, children begin to act independently of what they perceive. They free themselves from the constraints of situations, change, and also assign functions to the objects they use (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021).

Object substitution, or more precisely the ability to reverse the relationship between object and meaning, to distinguish perception from meaning, is considered an essential characteristic for all authors. For Vygotsky (1933/2022; 1933/2016), the object becomes a point of support that allows the child to act by pretending without having the real object (the stick becomes a horse). In play, objects lose their incentive character. They are no longer the ones who make the child act, but while playing, the child begins to act independently of what he perceives, meaning takes over the perceived object or situation (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021). In play, the child learns to separate the meaning, the meaning of the word, of the object, and thus to substitute one object for another (Fleer, 2009; Siraj-Blatchford, 2009), to separate the vision from the meaning (Pramling et al., 2019a), the visual field of the semantic field (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021). The thought takes precedence over the object. At this moment, the child frees himself or herself from the constraints of the situation, the child can think of the object without seeing it, and she or he can think of an absent object (Marinova, 2012). This dimension is particularly explored by Smirnova (2017), who describes the different phases of the development of the use of the object, as well as the role of imitation, and therefore of the adult, in this progression. The actions remain the same, but the meanings change. It is particularly the use of language, of the word, which will allow these changes. Marinova (2012) notes the fact that children must agree among themselves about the new meanings given to objects, space, and people. Thus, to play, children must not only identify and interpret signs and symbols but also use language to negotiate, plan, and communicate (ibid.). Finally, for Bodrova and Leong (2015), this use of signs to transcend ostensive reality promotes the ability to identify common characteristics between objects (the stick, like the horse, can be straddled). This is what allows Vygotsky (1933/2016, 1933/2022) to explain the role of object substitution in the development of abstraction in children. By crossing the text on play (Vygotsky, 1933/2016, 1933/2022) and that on the problem of the environment in pedology (Vygotsky, 1934/2019), Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2021) make a link between play and the fact that, in the young child, in the development of his psychic functions, the perception that is dominant until around three years old will give way to memory. In effect, in order for memory to develop and detach itself from its dependence on perception, the child will have to learn to think in spite of and to the contrary of what the child sees. Fleer (2009) adds the fact that as long as the child is dependent on his perception, he cannot name reality in any other way. However, by substituting objects, the child will have to name them according to what he means in his play project.

The question of the roles that children assign, negotiate, and interpret (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021) is raised as an essential characteristic for half of the authors in the texts selected. For Smirnova (2017), as for Marinova (2014), this dimension appears after the substitution of objects. Smirnova (2017) points out that there is a tension between the ideal adult and the real adult, and it is this tension that children learn to manage by taking on different roles. For Van Oers (2013, 2014), the question of roles is central, along with that of rules and degrees of freedom. For him, play is a cultural activity in which actors are strongly involved and follow certain rules with a margin of freedom as to the interpretation of these rules. This characteristic of play is not systematically treated by the authors except in connection with the roles: the children submit to the rules of the role. In Van Oers (ibid.), it is an essential characteristic. He distinguishes four types of rules in play: social rules (how to interact), technical rules (linked to the use of certain tools), conceptual rules (how to count, how to make a graph), and strategic rules which support the progress of play (division of roles, plan, scenario). Finally, on this subject, Pramling et al. (2019a) note that the freedom often attributed to play is only illusory since play implies rules related to the scenarios and the roles held in play. However, in our opinion, this freedom remains if we consider that the roles taken on and the scenarios negotiated are the result of a choice made by the children. Finally, for Marinova (2012), if negotiation is part of play, accepted meanings become obligatory for everyone. This “allows the child to appropriate the universal principle of transfer of meanings, a principle that he (sic) will find when learning to write and read” (Marinova, 2012, p. 5).

Another essential dimension in Vygotsky is linked to the role of language in the development of play. This dimension is invoked in connection with the diversion of the object. Marinova (2012) explains how the word mediates the dissociation between the visual field and the semantic field. In this way, the use of the word promotes in children the discovery of its role as mediators of meaning, as tools of thought. This transfer of meaning often requires negotiation. In this sense, language is also the tool that allows children to negotiate the meanings of objects, their scenarios, or their assigned roles, so that language promotes communication and the development of play. Finally, Marinova notes that it is through language that children exteriorize the imagined reality. Siraj-Blatchford (2009) considers that language serves both to describe play and to justify its thought. Another function of language in play is noted (Bodrova & Leong, 2015; Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021): it is the internalization of social language into private language, a condition of the ability to act in thought. Finally, a last function of language is related to the development of intentional behaviors and awareness of one’s thought processes (Bodrova & Leong, 2015; Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021). Play promotes the creation of voluntary intentions (Fleer, 2009). In play, the child plays a role, talks about what is happening in play, and acts out the scenario unfolding (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008). He is both an actor and a director. This allows the development of a double subjectivity (Fleer, 2016): the child makes use of the available tools according to the understanding he has of them, and at the same time, he becomes aware of how he experiences these tools (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021). In this sense, play promotes the development of abstraction, meta-consciousness, and meta-communication (Siraj-Blatchford (2009). It is also by respecting and making others respect the rules specific to a role or even by negotiating play scenario that self-regulation occurs and intentional behaviors emerge (Fleer, 2009).This self-regulation leads the child to pay attention to his thought processes and awareness of them (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Fleer, 2016; Smirnova, 2017) This process will allow the child to gradually act in a conscious and voluntary manner and to develop metacognitive processes.

Some authors add a few elements to these definitions of play from a cultural-historical perspective. For Pramling et al. (2019a), a fundamental learning of the ability to learn is the change of perspective. In play, children train to adopt different perspectives, to explore different hypotheses or to adopt other points of view (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021). Play thus promotes the development of the ability to adopt the perspective of others (Bodrova & Leong, 2015), the development of empathy (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021). Furthermore, Fleer (2017) shows how children enter and exit play, which Pramling et al. (2019b) conceptualized “as is” and “as if,” thus explaining that there can be as well as there may be pretending or acting as the knowledge requires as much in moments of play as in other situations called structured learning. Finally, note that play can lead to the identification of new learning necessary for the continuation of play, what Marinova (2012) calls learning to play.

Play and Imagination

Among the Vygotskian concepts raised by the authors in connection with play, the imagination is treated by all. Vygotsky (1933/2016, 1933/2022) locates the origin of the development of the imagination in children’s play. Imagination in adolescence is the fruit of the internalization of pretend play. He also notes that “[play] has its own inner continuation in school instruction and work (compulsory activity based on rules) (1966/2016, p. 20). Play is converted into an internal process in older children and also participates in the development of logical memory and abstract thought (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009). For Vygotsky (1933/2016, 1933/2022), pretend play is an activity particularly conducive to generating qualitative changes in child development, and imagination is one of these changes. Because imaginary situations free children from the constraints of situations, they promote the possibility of acting through thought, of thinking what is not and therefore of imagining situations that do not yet exist. The development of the imagination is linked to the possibility of projecting, planning, or even transforming situations. Play is also an opportunity to experience different scenarios associated with different hypotheses and from different points of view (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021).

Imagination is seen as a developmental gain from play activity (Bodrova & Leong, 2015); play is the source of imagination (Van Oers, 2013), and imagination, seen as creative reconstruction, is the basis of all activity (Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021). Imagination, as it appears in play, is as much collective as it is individual (Fleer, 2009). It is a psychic function, a resource for learning. In play, the child’s imagination allows him to explore reality and invest in it to free himself from it (Fleer, 2016) and get to know it better (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021). It is necessary as much for play as for conceptual development and is nourished by the experience of play as well as conceptual learning (Fleer, 2011). Finally, for Marinova (2015), the imagination leads children into an area they do not know, and which will require new learning to play.

Play and Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky (1933/2016, 1933/2022) explains how, in play, children submit to rules in a way that is impossible in everyday life. It is for this reason that play is a zone of proximal development (ZPD). In play, the child is above the child’s average age, she or he bounds a leap beyond her or his usual behavior. Thus, the play-development relationship in young children can be compared to the teaching-development relationship in older children. Acting in the field of the imagination allows the creation of voluntary intentions and motivations. If Vygotsky (ibid.) clearly poses the fact that play creates the zone of proximal development, it is interesting to note how the various contemporary authors explain or justify this.

A first explanation for the creation of a ZPD is related to object substitution (Smirnova, 2017; Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021). This distancing of perception in favor of the ability to act in thought (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021) makes possible new actions and another form of exploration of the real world. For Smirnova (2017), all the higher psychic functions have their origin in play, on the one hand, because adult interventions allow the development of the ability to turn away from objects and, on the other hand, because play allows the transition from direct activities to actions mediated by signs, tools of culture. The use of semiotic tools at the level of the child’s understanding of them and, more particularly, the possibility of becoming aware of this use by distancing what is at stake (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021) is also an explanation of how play creates a ZPD. In other words, play creates a ZPD because it incorporates instruments, signs, and cultural norms that children must point to and interpret. Learning consists of understanding the meaning of these signs as well as producing a meaning that everyone can understand (Marinova, 2012).

Another explanation of ZPD is peer regulation (Marinova, 2012; Siraj-Blatchford, 2009) or collective regulation (Bodrova & Leong, 2015). To appropriate the adult other-regulation, children go through a stage where they other-regulate their peers (ibid.). This possibility of staging proven hetero-regulations is implemented in play (e.g., by playing teacher). For others (Smirnova, 2017; Smolucha & Smolucha, 2021), it is the fact that this language of play or about play is called upon to become internalized. Play is, therefore, the lever for the development of inner language.

For Vygotsky (1934/1985), the ZPD is the creation of a tension whose resolution provokes development. This idea of tension is taken up by several authors. Smirnova (2017) speaks of the discordance between the real situation and the imaginary situation, or even of the unity of contradictions between direct conduct and mediated conduct, between voluntary and involuntary, between affective and intellectual, between dependence and independence of the situation. For others (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Fleer, 2009; Pramling et al., 2019b), it is the common presence of current forms of development and ideal forms of development that would cause this tension. Fleer (2016) speaks of double subjectivity, between the actor who plays and the director who guides play. Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2021) add between emotions played and emotions to be played (the child is happy to play a sad character). This double subjectivity promotes awareness of the experience being lived and the deployment of tensions that generate a zone of proximal development. This awareness is made possible in particular by the use of language (Marinova, 2012). For El’Konin (1999), in reference to Vygotsky, it is these tensions, these contradictions specific to play, that will generate the transition from preschool age to school age. Play is thus a driving force in the restructuring of the psyche at preschool age.

Finally, Van Oers (2013) points out that it is not just any action that can be learned with help but only actions that take place in a context of accessible and meaningful activities for the child. In this perspective, he insists on the role of imitation and therefore of the adult who proposes actions to imitate. Marinova (2012) establishes a link between the creation of a ZPD through play and the learning that can take place there.

Play Development

The authors studied here consider that play changes during development. We can categorize the authors’ points of view according to three perspectives: (1) the development of play is a process; (2) different types of play follow one another; and (3) play develops according to defined and observable stages. The first perspective therefore considers that play develops along a continuum, according to a process going from the imitation of others to the creative transformation and the assumption of a role allowing the development of an imaginary situation. The authors (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Fleer, 2009, 2017; Pramling et al., 2019b) who adopt this position, which seems to be that of Vygotsky (1933/2016, 1933/2022), therefore do not identify stages of development of play. In this perspective, Clerc-Georgy and Martin (2021), relying on Vygotsky (1933/2016, 1933/2022), note that during its development, play is the subject of an internalization. Thus, in adolescence, imagination becomes play without action. They add that pretend play establishes a way of thinking conducive to school learning. Indeed, these authors explain that the ability to play a role promotes the adoption of a language register specific to the school, the “I-as-a-student.” This is different from “I-as-myself.” This ability is required, for example, when the student must express himself or herself as “I” without it being his experience or his opinion that is expected. Voluntarily and consciously pretending is a posture required by school, especially when it comes to adopting a school perspective in learning.

Still from a process perspective, it is interesting to note the proposals of Fleer (2017) in taking up the point of view developed by Vygotsky (1933/2016, 1933/2022). This author identifies three movements in the development of play. The first goes from the imitation of a role in an imaginary situation (with the focus on the role) to the use of roles to develop an imaginary situation (where the focus is on the imaginary situation). The second movement goes from the imaginary situation with rules (where the focus is on the imaginary situation) to rules with an imaginary situation (where the focus is on the rules of play). Here, children spend less time playing than negotiating their play. The third and final movement goes from centering on objects to centering on meanings. Finally, Pramling et al. (2019b) note, with reference to Vygotsky, that play develops from imitation towards imagination.

The second perspective identifies some types of development which succeed each other, as stages in the development of play or in certain dimensions of this development. Thus, Smirnova (2017) describes the origin of make-believe play in four stages, focusing on the development of object substitution. At first, the child plays only “realistically” with objects whose use is fixed and uses them in accordance with their purposes and uses in everyday life. For example, a spoon will be used to feed a doll. Then, the child shows an interest in the substitute actions implemented by an adult, and immediately after observing such a substitution, the child imitates these actions with the same object substitution. For example, the adult uses a broom as a horse, and the child will immediately imitate. Later, after some play interactions (with others), the child engages in delayed independent imitation of the adult’s acts of substitution. For example, the use of the broom by the child imitating the adult will take place several minutes after the action of the adult. Finally, in addition to the imitations of the adult’s substitutions, the child invents substitutions of the child’s own which appear as variations of the adult’s actions. For example, the child will use a toy sword as a horse.

Siraj-Blatchford (2009) identifies types of play according to the presence or absence of interactions between the children who play as well as the nature of these interactions. Thus, there is at first solitary play, then shared play, and finally, collaborative play. These types of play are not discrete stages that children pass through successively. Each of these types of play may therefore be implemented throughout life. Siraj-Blatchford further notes that each new stage opens up more opportunities for children to learn. Smolucha and Smolucha (2021) note that the ability to substitute one object for another is preceded, prepared by play where the adult, or even another, often older child, plays with the fingers of the hands as a substitute for an object or of an animal. For example, in play of “peek-a-boo,” or when the adult acts as if his fingers were a spider or a mouse climbing on the child’s chest. Then it will also be the adult who will introduce the substitution of the object that the child will imitate first with toys that support the characters, the roles played by the children (doll), and then with everyday objects (crockery, table, etc.). Finally, the child will choose or create his own substitutions.

For Marinova (2014), play develops along three universal axes: object substitution, roles, and scenarios. For this author, this development is universal. When the three dimensions are all present, Marinova (2015) speaks of mature play. Regarding the substitution of objects, Marinova (2012) explains that in the “object-meaning-word” triad, the object loses its importance in favor of the word which is a vehicle carrying meaning. This is why children first need toys that mimic reality. Gradually, the object substitutes will become more abstract, until they disappear and give way to the word. The same goes for actions in play, where words will convey meaning and transform play into narrative activities. Thus, imitation play in which the narrative part increases becomes fictional play. “The discovery of language as a mediator of meaning in play represents a revolutionary acquisition that restructures the mental functions of the child” (Marinova, 2012, p. 7)

Van Oers (2012, 2017) builds on the work of El’Konin (1999, 2005) and identifies types of play that emerge during child development. In their first months of life, parents engage children in interactions which fit into a typical format that will be repeated, a format which outlines the structure (e.g., Peek-a-boo). From the first year, there appears manipulation play where the child will grab and handle objects, smell them, suck them, throw them, hit them, etc. Around the age of four, pretend play or role-play emerges. Van Oers also notes a form of role-playing neglected in the literature which he calls the play director or “mise en scene.” Here, the child does not play a role (except that of director!) but instead directs the role-play using objects (e.g., making dolls play).

Finally, Van Oers presents a last type of play, productive play, which is not usually recognized as play. El’Konin speaks of a learning activity which becomes a new main activity succeeding pretend play. But van Oers (2012) considers that certain productive activities include a playful dimension. For example, activities whose purpose is to produce variations in actions, use of tools, or of play according to van Oers (2012) (e.g., imagining different actions to win a contest). Just as Siraj-Blatchford did (2009), Van Oers (2012) insists on the fact that the four types of play to which he refers do not give way to the last that emerged. Each type never completely disappears but instead manages to coexist alongside the others.

In the third perspective, the authors identify and categorize play according to well-defined observable stages. Leong and Bodrova (2012) describe five stages in the development of pretend play. We briefly introduce them below: (1) Children imitate or follow what the teacher does or says. They don’t take roles. (2) Children create stereotypical scenarios that last a few minutes. Actions precede the choice of roles. (3) Children play familiar scripts in full for about ten minutes and accept new ideas for scripts. They begin to plan both the roles they are going to play, respecting rules that they can still sometimes violate, but also the actions they are going to take. (4) The children plan the scenarios in advance, which can last at least an hour. Several scenarios can be linked in a coordinated way. They play complex and sometimes multiple roles in the same play. They use symbolic accessories. Finally, they increasingly use language to negotiate and describe scenarios, roles, and actions before and during play. (5) They negotiate and plan complex themes, scenarios, and roles. They spend more time negotiating and planning than playing. Play can last several days, during which several articulated scenarios can be linked. The use of language is ever increasing. These authors propose an evaluation grid for pretend play ranging from immature play to mature play.

Link With a Pedagogical-Didactic Perspective

The authors have also been selected here for their pedagogical proposals. For Vygotsky (1930/2022), adults help children organize their play and guide their play activities, so the adult is not necessarily outside of the children’s play. These different perspectives can be classified according to at least two criteria: (1) the pedagogy of play, for play or through play, in other words, to develop play and/or learning, in a more or less dialectical perspective; and (2) the role of the adult in children’s play. These criteria allow us to organize the authors’ proposals.

Whereas all the authors agree on the fact that one must learn to play, some focus their comments on this dimension. Thus, Smirnova (2017) proposes a progression of learning object substitution. She insists on the role of the adult who first shows an example that the child can imitate. As soon as the child takes up gestures from the adult, the latter shows enthusiasm in order to encourage the child. The author explains that the functional substitution of an object is at first interpsychic before becoming intrapsychic. Finally, she points out that this transfer of meaning is only possible if the child is emotionally involved in play. Smolucha & Smolucha (2021) also discuss the role of the adult in learning to play. Like Smirnova, they focus on guiding the learning of object substitution. They add that the child will internalize the verbal guidance of the adult, which implies that the latter is present and guides the child through language. Finally, still with a view to learning to play, Bodrova and Leong (2007, 2015), in reference to El’Konin (2005), propose a play progression grid in five stages (cf. supra). This grid should allow the adult to assess the level of maturity of children’s play and to propose mediations to allow them to move from one stage to another in each dimension of play. Finally, there is never any question of disciplinary knowledge in connection with play. This knowledge is worked on in other activities.

Another perspective is defended by some authors: it is the dialectical relationship between play and knowledge from disciplines. Indeed, in their texts, the question of learning from the curriculum and their dialectical articulation with play is central. However, the role of the adult in guiding children is approached very differently from one author to another. Marinova (2014) proposes a pedagogy of play in which the adult can intervene. The first step is to allow children to develop their ability to play in line with the three key areas of play development outlined above. When play is mature (Marinova, 2015), it will promote the appearance of learning needs necessary for its continuation. “Children do not play to learn, but rather learn to play.” (Marinova, 2012, p. 6) The teacher can then intervene by adopting a position of player, of partner in the construction of knowledge to be learned in order to play. If he can act by pursuing a learning objective, he remains open to the uncertainty of the evolution of the scenario implemented by the children. Play creates a ZPD in which the learning takes place (Marinova, 2012); the teacher oversees the development of play and agrees to guide the students in learning that is not necessarily planned. The author considers that these are didactic challenges and calls them learning situations that emerge in play. These situations come under the following main activity (systematic learning). This is consistent with the proposals of Kravtsova & Maximov (2014), who explain that the leading activity of systematic learning can only become dominant when the leading activity of pretend play is sufficiently developed.

Still in a perspective that relies on play to identify possible learning, Siraj-Blatchford (2009) considers the role of the adult as essential. The teacher observes the child during play and more particularly how he uses skills, knowledge, attitudes. She talks about emerging curriculum. The teacher guides play activities by providing challenges that allow children to broaden their experiences. It encourages the use of symbols. Play is a context for learning, a creative process of learning, a progressive re-contextualization of the use of symbols. Siraj-Blatchford (ibid.) speaks of “sustained shared thinking” to conceptualize the role of the adult, who supports and engages the child in varied experiences and learning. Professional actions are, for example, repeatedly modeling, observe, rewarding, providing props or even just observing, listening, noting and identifying significant potential. For this author, play therefore also has the function of revealing the potential of children.

In another perspective, the approach of a Swedish team (Pramling et al., 2019b) is clearly dialectical. For these authors, there is not play on one side and the learning of knowledge on the other. On the one hand, there is “as if” in moments of play as well as in moments of learning structured by the teacher. On the other hand, there is “as is” (use of knowledge, commitment to a form of cultural reproduction, such as deciphering, counting) also in moments of play. These authors develop what they call a “play-responsive didaktik” which tries to achieve the synthesis between play and learning. With this in mind, the teacher adjusts his interventions to the actions and verbalizations of the students during play. Teaching is, therefore, a fundamentally dialogical activity. It is not only about confirming what students already know but also, at the same time, providing incentives and support for students to make new experiences and appropriate new knowledge. The teacher’s role here is also to coordinate students’ perspectives to enable them to discern or appropriate a new perspective and thus establish a form of intersubjectivity (Pramling et al., 2019a). The teacher can initiate or contribute to the development of children’s play by making suggestions or by intervening in their play. They call this professional gesture “triggering.” However, even with teacher intervention, play must remain open-ended.

Clerc-Georgy et al. (2020) also attempt to build a didactic that dialectically articulates play and knowledge from the disciplines. The approach is a spiral one. The authors propose not to separate learning to play and playing to learn. In their play, the children reinvest the knowledge being built or bring out the learning needs necessary for the development of play. In addition, in more academic learning activities, the use of pretending and imagination are needed. There is no learning without imagination. From this perspective (Clerc-Georgy & Martin, 2021; Clerc-Georgy et al., 2020), the teacher can intervene in and around children’s play. The teacher does this as much to promote the development of play as to seize opportunities to establish links between imaginary situations and the knowledge of the curriculum. The teacher plays with the children by taking on a role, proposes challenges, verbalizes or elicits verbalizations of what is being played. Finally, the teacher can, by interrupting play when a situation arises, or after a moment of play, suggest that the students meet to collectively discuss a problem, a discovery, or a learning process to be carried out in order to promote play development.

In an equally dialectical perspective where the teacher intervenes in play with learning objectives linked to the curriculum, Van Oers and Duijkers (2013) propose the “play-based curriculum” model. This model allows for the productive use of play as a meaningful context for learning. The author speaks of “productive play” as a play that allows disciplinary learning. The role of the teacher is clearly described here. The author proposes five strategies to stimulate learning in the context of children’s play: (1) orientation: the teacher explores play situation with the children and focuses their attention on certain aspects or certain actions; (2) structuring and deepening: the teacher develops a script with the children with reference to a known story or by opening the scene with a particular action; (3) extension: the teacher helps the children to propose other learning activities related to play; (4) contribution: the teacher introduces objects or semiotic tools to enrich the play; (5) reflection: the teacher introduces moments of discussion on play in progress by asking questions to encourage the children to reflect on their actions in relation to the knowledge under construction (metacognitive dimension). This approach pays attention to ensuring that children’s play continues and that teacher interventions do not prevent play from developing.

Finally, with the intention of reconciling the conceptual requirements imposed by the new curricula and the fact that at preschool age the main activity is play of pretending, Fleer (2019), in reference to Lindqvist’s “playworld” (1995), proposes the “conceptual play world.” This approach articulates in a dialectical way play and appropriation of scientific or technological concepts. Here, the teacher plays a central role by embarking with the children on an imaginary situation resulting from a story. As with Marinova (2015), the play situation will generate learning necessary for the continuation of play. However, with Fleer (2019), this learning is anticipated by the teacher, who chooses a story containing a dramatic situation and by favoring empathy for a character among the children. The dramatic situation is a problem situation whose resolution by the pupils requires new learning of the concepts as well as the processes of research, study, and observation implemented in scientific practices. The “conceptual play world” alternates moments “in play” where the imaginary situation takes place and moments “outside play” where the children and the teacher build the knowledge necessary to solve the problem resulting from play. The author proposes that two teachers participate, one adopting the role of co-player and the other that of guide or model. In this perspective, we start from play, from a dramatic situation, but Fleer (2022) contrasts this approach with another perspective teaching these same concepts. Here, it is a question of starting from the phenomenon (e.g., shadows or clouds) or from a scientific concept (e.g., light or force). Thus, situations will be proposed to the students, and from these the teacher will guide the students in order to enable them to appropriate the concepts and the research process. These two approaches are complementary.

Conclusion

The potential of pretend play today is often overlooked. Several studies, in different parts of the world, have compared the skills of children in play situations between 1950 and today. These studies, cited by Landry et al. (2012), show that, during those years, play declined in both quantity and quality. This analysis demonstrates the continuing interest of Vygotsky’s work in thinking about the place of play in schools in the twenty-first century. The authors selected here have in common the consideration of make-believe play as an essential activity for the development of young children. Their insights into pretend play complement each other in helping us understand why play is so important. Play is a cultural activity that is passed down from generation to generation. In this sense, learning to play is necessary. Several authors offer us ways to promote the development of play, to guide children in this learning. It is probably worth recalling the essential role of the adult who plays with the children, the role of both guide and partner in play.

By cross-fertilizing what Vygotsky brings to play (1933/2016, 1933/2022) with what he brings to learning and teaching at the preschool age (Vygotsky, 1935/1995), we may conclude that not only does play promote the development of the child’s mental abilities but also the ability to voluntarily invest in imposed learning through the school curriculum. Indeed, by the nature of the interactions it promotes, play prefigures learning activities requiring the negotiation of meanings and prepares the child for systematic learning.

In addition, the different perspectives presented and discussed in this work make it possible to identify a double dialectic in the role and use of pretend play at school. On the one hand, a dialectic between the real world and an imaginary world illustrated, for example, by the conceptual playworld of Fleer (2017) and, on the other hand, a dialectic between playing and learning illustrated, for example, by the play-responsive didaktik of Pramling et al. (2019b). These two dialectical movements are necessary if pretend play is to be a key element not only in elementary school but also throughout schooling and beyond.

In this perspective, the characteristics of play developed by Van Oers (2013, 2014) make it possible not to limit the interest of play of pretending to the first stages of schooling but to broaden its use to achieve learning throughout life. It is not only a question of analyzing current learning activities but also of imagining new ones in the light of pretend play. Thus, the development of a didactics of school learning based on pretend play could be at the center of a future research program.

Finally, because play opens the way to learning, to the appropriation of cultural tools, its use at school could promote the academic learning of all students. While some have begun to suggest avenues for specific didactics at preschool age (three to seven years old), there are many challenges to be met for all researchers, trainers, and decision-makers in charge of early childhood education.