Teacher Implementation of Sociodramatic Play in Early Childhood Education: A Systematic Review

Sukhikh, V.L. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia Federal Scientific Center for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research, Moscow, Russia

Veresov, N.N. Monash University, Australia

Gavrilova, M.N. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia Federal Scientific Center for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research, Moscow, Russia

Introduction 

In recent decades, a large body of theoretical and empirical research justified play as a cornerstone of child development and education. Despite widespread recognition of play’s developmental value, collective sociodramatic play seems to be a challenging practice for educators. 

Central to this activity is collaborative narrative construction: sociodramatic play is a child-initiated, collective activity in which children spontaneously assume roles, negotiate imaginary scenarios, and generate and transform storylines in real time through shared symbolic action. In this sense, storytelling is not a separate activity that accompanies play, but a constitutive dimension of it. This distinguishes sociodramatic play from adjacent literacy-oriented practices such as the reading, retelling, or structured enactment of a pre-existing text in which the narrative is largely given rather than generated, and the emphasis falls on linguistic form, sequencing, and comprehension rather than on the collective negotiation of shared imaginary meaning. This distinction matters because these two orientations place different demands on teachers, and because some pedagogical models deliberately combine them (see below).

The overwhelming majority of interventions demonstrating the positive impact of sociodramatic play have been conducted by the researchers themselves under special conditions outside usual educational routines, aligning with previous meta-analyses that have indicated that researcher-implemented interventions often lead to larger gains than those conducted by teachers (Marulis & Neuman, 2010). ECE teachers encounter difficulties in implementing this type of play within the curriculum. The diversity of approaches to sociodramatic play necessitates a thorough analysis and evaluation of their effectiveness and implementation in preschool settings.

The present study aims to address these gaps by identifying effective pedagogical approaches, required teacher competencies, and implementation barriers that influence outcomes for both children and educators.

Sociodramatic Play Among Other Types of Play

The literature often uses several overlapping terms interchangeably, so clear boundaries are needed. Pretend play is the broadest category. It encompasses any activity involving symbolic substitution (Ryabkova et al., 2025; Lillard et al., 2013; Weisberg et al., 2013). Role play is narrower and denotes the enactment of a role, but not necessarily in interaction with others. Dramatic play refers to imitative enactment of a role, which may remain solitary. Sociodramatic play, as defined by Smilansky and Shefatya (1990), adds two requirements: social interaction and verbal communication among at least two players who coordinate their roles around a common theme.

The cultural-historical approach offers a converging definition. Vygotsky (2016) characterized such play through the creation of an imaginary situation, the adoption of roles, and adherence to the rules implicit in those roles. He positioned it as a leading activity of the preschool years, through which higher psychological functions develop. In play, children reproduce and model the social roles and relationships they observe around them, learn to understand social norms and rules, develop imagination, self-regulation, and the ability to think abstractly. Bodrova and Leong (2007), using the term make-believe play, specified that its mature forms involve multi-theme scenarios, elaborate role speech, and sustained collaborative engagement.  

A recurring feature across these definitions is the role of shared narrative. Storytelling and narrative are therefore best understood as internal components of sociodramatic play rather than as a distinct object of inquiry parallel to it. This is important for the present review because pedagogical models vary in how explicitly they foreground narrative construction: some (STSA, Playworlds) make the storyline an explicit shared artefact, whereas others embed narrative implicitly within collective role enactment. All, however, share the same underlying construct.

Drawing on these definitions, we adopt four criteria to distinguish sociodramatic play from adjacent constructs: (1) children adopt and enact explicit roles; (2) players interact between roles, rather than engaging in solitary pretense; (3) play unfolds as a developing storyline; and (4) play is collective, involving two or more participants who jointly sustain the imaginary situation. We use “sociodramatic play” as an umbrella term for educator-supported collective pretend play that meets these four criteria, encompassing a range of pedagogical models that differ in structure and teacher involvement, including those in which storytelling is made an explicit organizing element.

Sociodramatic Play and Play-Based Learning

Play-based learning encompasses a broad spectrum of approaches in early childhood education, yet not all implementations center on sociodramatic play. Many educational programs emphasize other play types, such as guided games with rules for mathematical development (DePascale & Ramani, 2024), constructive play for spatial reasoning (Bower et al., 2025), or exploratory play for scientific inquiry (Bulunuz, 2013). Weisberg et al. (2013) describe “guided play“ approaches that incorporate adult-directed learning goals within playful contexts but often lack the characteristic of mature role-play such as complex social negotiation and sustained imaginative scenarios. Notable exceptions include Pramling Samuelsson’s developmental pedagogy research in Sweden (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008) and the Tools of the Mind curriculum, which deliberately structures sociodramatic play opportunities to develop self-regulation and executive functions through Vygotskian principles of mature play (Bodrova & Leong, 2025; Diamond et al., 2007). And while numerous practitioner resources offer guideline for supporting children’s play (e.g., Bredikyte, M., 2017; Smilansky & Shefatya, 1990), the extent to which the recommendations can be meaningfully implemented within standard educational routines and curricula remains questionable.

Existing Reviews

Several reviews and meta-analyses have examined the effects of pretend play and play-based pedagogies on child development, but none focus specifically on teacher implementation of sociodramatic play. Smits-van den Natt et al. (2024) synthesized evidence on pretend play and social competence, highlighting improvements in social skills, yet their review did not consider teacher competencies or classroom implementation. Skene et al. (2022) reviewed guidance during play in educational contexts, emphasizing the benefits of adult scaffolding for child learning outcomes, but the studies reviewed did not focus on collective sociodramatic play specifically. Pyle et al. (2017) conducted a scoping review of play-based pedagogies in kindergarten, summarizing pedagogical approaches and child outcomes, but teacher professional development and implementation strategies were only briefly discussed and again there was no focus on collective sociodramatic play specifically. Lillard et al. (2013) provided a comprehensive review of pretend play’s impact on child development across cognitive, social, and emotional domains, yet teacher involvement in implementing narrative story-based play was not a focus. These reviews indicate some evidence for the benefits of play-based approaches, but there is a clear gap regarding systematic synthesis of teacher practices, skills, and competencies required to implement sociodramatic play in preschool classrooms.

Rationale and Objectives

Given the recognized role of sociodramatic play as a leading activity that fosters the development of higher psychological functions in the preschool years, this systematic review aims to synthesize available evidence on the implementation of sociodramatic play in preschool settings to answer the main research question: How is educator-led collective sociodramatic play implemented in early childhood education settings, and with what outcomes for children and educators? 

To answer this question, the review pursues the following specific objectives:

1. To identify and describe approaches to implement sociodramatic play within early childhood educational settings;

2. To determine the skills, training, and competencies required for educators to effectively integrate sociodramatic play into the preschool curriculum;

3. To identify and synthesize evidence on the barriers, challenges, and limitations encountered by educators when integrating sociodramatic play;

4. To map the outcomes associated with the use of sociodramatic play in preschool settings.

Methods

A protocol was submitted to the PROSPERO registry for systematic reviews (CRD number: 420251122410). PRISMA guidelines of reporting were followed (Page et al., 2021). 

Eligibility Criteria  

Types of Participants 

The population of interest was early childhood teachers, including both pre-service and in-service teachers, and children in pre-school/kindergarten from the age 3 to 7. Studies focusing on children outside of this age range were excluded. Studies focusing only on children with special educational needs were excluded. Studies were excluded if the sociodramatic play intervention was delivered by a visiting facilitator or researcher, rather than by a regular educator working within the educational setting. The review focuses specifically on educator-led implementation of play into the curriculum.

Types of Studies

The searches among English-language published journal articles were conducted with no restrictions based on study design or publication date. RCTs, qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods were eligible for inclusion. Studies focusing on the implementation of play-based curriculum at the national level were excluded, as the articles did not contain specific information related to sociodramatic play. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as exploratory research, where teachers were not assigned explicit tasks, were excluded. Tool of the Mind studies were excluded because they primarily examine broad curriculum effects.

Types of Settings

Studies conducted in early childhood education settings (e.g., preschools, kindergartens, nursery schools) were included. Studies conducted in clinical, home-based, or informal settings without a clear educational context were excluded.

Types of Interventions

This review included studies that evaluate sociodramatic play conducted by teachers in ECE as an addition to the main curricula. Eligible interventions had to be implemented with the intention of supporting children’s learning, development, or play skills within structured or semi-structured educational settings.

Consistent with the definition adopted above, the review included only forms of play that meet four criteria: (1) children adopt and enact explicit roles; (2) players interact between roles, rather than engage in solitary pretense; (3) play unfolds as a developing storyline; and (4) play is collective, involving two or more participants who jointly sustain the imaginary situation.

Studies were excluded if they limited play activity to non-narrative, non-interactive formats, such as circle games, group movement or serious games, or songs with gestures, where children do not engage in sustained role-taking or narrative development. Studies were also excluded if they solely focused on free play and the educator’s role was limited to preparation of the environment.

Types of Outcome Measures

Included studies reported on at least one of the following outcome domains:

• Academic skills (e.g., language, early literacy, math);

• Developmental outcomes (e.g., cognitive, physical, social, emotional development);

• Play development (e.g., complexity of play, role enactment);

• Educator-related factors and outcomes (e.g., pedagogical strategies, training needs, competencies);

• Barriers and challenges to integration of sociodramatic play in educational contexts.

Search Methods for Identification of Studies  

Two widely recognized and representative databases – ScienceDirect (Scopus) and PubMed – were selected for the literature search, as they are commonly used in education research.

An initial scope of the literature and consultation with an expert panel identified the following keywords: role-playing game; sociodramatic play; dramatic play; pretend play; role play; collective play; joint play; guided play; guided pretend play; guided dramatic play; play based; purposeful play; playful learning; playful pedagogy. Additionally, the search included terms related to early childhood education contexts: (“preschool” OR “early childhood” OR “kindergarten” OR “early years”). For PubMed, the main search terms were entered in quotation marks to focus on exact matches of the keywords. Furthermore, a “filter by age” was applied to limit results to studies involving young children, specifically those within the age range relevant to preschool settings. To supplement the database searches, a total of 39 sources from a systematic review on guided play (Skene et al., 2022) were included. These sources were specifically selected due to their relevance and focus on guided play strategies in early childhood education settings. A list of all studies identified for inclusion was shared with an expert panel to ensure that key papers had not been missed. Any additional papers suggested were screened for inclusion. Reference list checking (backward citation searching) of all studies identified for inclusion was also conducted. Searches were conducted on August 8-10, 2025.

Data Collection and Analysis

Study Selection and Data Extraction

All records retrieved through the search were exported to Rayyan, an AI-assisted systematic review platform, and screened by titles and abstracts against predefined eligibility criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Eligible or unclear records were then reviewed at the full-text level. Data extraction focused on participant demographics, study characteristics, intervention details, required teacher skills and support, as well as challenges for implementation, children and teacher outcomes. Verification of inclusion decisions was conducted by two reviewers. 

Risk of Bias in Included Studies

Given the heterogeneity of study designs included in this review, risk of bias was assessed using design-specific tools. For randomized controlled trials, risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 (RoB 2; Sterne et al., 2019), for quasi-experimental studies, including one mixed method study, the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I; Sterne et al., 2016) was used, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research (CASP, 2018) was used for qualitative studies. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using an AI agent that systematically analyzed each study report (n = 35), applying standardized criteria. The process was carefully validated by one reviewer through manual checks and calibration.

Narrative Synthesis Approach 

A narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize and interpret findings across all included studies (Popay et al., 2006). This approach was chosen due to the substantial heterogeneity of study designs and a large proportion of qualitative studies, which precludes meaningful meta-analytic aggregation. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive qualitative understanding of the complexities, challenges, and outcomes related to sociodramatic play integration in early childhood education, which is best captured by a narrative approach that highlights both contextual nuances and measurable outcomes.

Study characteristics, participant details, and intervention features were organized within a conceptual framework structured around five identified implementation approaches. Within each approach, child outcomes were categorized into three domains: content, development, and play maturity; teacher involvement was examined as approach-specific, while barriers to implementation were considered as a cross-cutting dimension shaping outcomes across all approaches.

Qualitative findings were synthesized thematically: from each qualitative study we extracted illustrative data (participant quotations, described play episodes, and researcher observations) and grouped them under the review’s analytic dimensions (implementation approaches, teacher competencies, barriers, and outcomes). Representative extracts are reported verbatim to preserve contextual meaning, consistent with the aims of narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006). 

Results

Study Selection

The systematic search results are displayed in a PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). In total, the search yielded 1,366 potentially eligible studies; 1,271 studies were identified via electronic search and 95 through hand searching, reference list checking, and recommendations from an expert panel. Following eligibility screening, 95 studies were identified for full-text screening. A total of 35 papers (27 studies) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Reasons for exclusion are noted in the PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of search results, included and excluded studies. 

Included Studies Description

Only one study (Dickinson et al., 2018) employed a cluster randomized controlled trial design, with classrooms randomly assigned to conditions. The search also identified 8 quasi-experimental studies and 18 qualitative studies. Of these, 11 qualitative studies described in 18 papers explore Conceptual PlayWorlds developed by M. Fleer and conducted under her guidance or with her participation. See Table 1 for summary of study characteristics.

Table 1

Included Study Characteristics

Author, year	Study design	Country	Total number of participants (children/ teachers)	Number/ duration/ period of play sessions	Main outcome(s)
Different strategies of sociodramatic play implementation
Baumer et al., 2005	QE	USA	38/2	14 sessions/ 2 h/ 14 weeks	Narrative comprehension; narrative production.
Brėdikytė, 2022	Q	Lithuania	300+/26	60 play episodes/ 6 months	Changes in behavior, relationship, motivation, attitudes, self-regulation.
Dickinson et al., 2018	Cluster RCT	USA	227/16	12 sessions/ 15-20 min/ 12 weeks	Receptive vocabulary knowledge; expressive vocabulary; self-regulation (cognitive and behavioral); general vocabulary knowledge.
Edwards, Cutter-Mackenzie, 2013	QE	Australia	114/16	3 sessions	Learning of biodiversity concepts.
Ferholt & Rainio, 2016	Q	USA	20/1	14 sessions/2h/ 1 year	Inclusion of previously  excluded child.
Gmitrova, 2013	QE	Slovakia	368/92	3 days per play theme/3 themes	Play indicators (cognitive).
Hakkarainen, 2008	Q	Finland	31/3	twice a week/5 months	Use of cultural tools (signs, symbols, concepts) in interactions; initiation of activities with others using these cultural tools.
Hakkarainen et al., 2013	Q	Finland  Lithuania	110/200+	Multiple sessions once a week/ 3-4 h/ 7-year period of research	Joint play.
Hollenstein et al., 2022 Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024	MM Q	Switzerland	15/not  specified	every day for 1 to 1.5 h /3.5 months	Problem-solving processes and strategies; role of the teacher in guided pretend play.
Levy et al., 1986	QE	USA	28/ not specified	15 sessions/ 2 months	Language development (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test).
Levy et al., 1992	QE	USA	9/2	9/ 30 min/ 9 days	Number of words spoken within a 15-minute period; mean length of minimal terminable unit (MLT); number of specific theme-related words spoken within a 15-minute period; number of concept words (color, shape, number, quantity, space, time) spoken within a 15-minute period
McCabe, 2017	QE	Ireland	37/ not specified	10 sessions	Play skills (Smilansky scale).
Nicolopoulou et al., 2015	QE	USA	216/ not specified	regular activity during a year	Narrative skills, vocabulary, emergent literacy (print and word awareness), pretend abilities; social competence (peer cooperation, self-regulation).
Richard et al., 2021	QE	Switzerland	79/10	11 sessions/ 1h/ 11 weeks	Emotion comprehension; prosocial behavior; negative emotion regulation.
Vartiainen et al., 2024	Q	Finland	12/2	4 sessions/ 42–68 min/ not  specified	Learning of sustainability concepts.
Vidal Carulla et al., 2021	Q	Sweden	20/ not specified	15 months	Emerging chemistry; executive functions development.
Conceptual PlayWorlds
Chen, 2024 Disney & Li, 2022 Li & Disney, 2021	Q	Australia	22/3 (2)	4-6 sessions/ 1.5-2 h	Mathematical problem-solving skills; understanding of mathematical concepts; teachers’ dynamic pedagogical positioning.
Fleer, 2017	Q	Australia	26/3	4 weeks	Scientific learning.
Fleer et al., 2017 Fleer et al., 2020	Q	Australia	91/10 (8)	10 sessions/ 10 weeks	Executive functions development.
Fleer, 2020a Fleer, 2020b	Q	Australia	13/2	12 weeks/12  months	Development of engineering thinking, concept understanding; problem-solving skills; development of Engineering PlayWorld model.
Fleer, 2021	Q	Australia	31/2	regular playworlds during 2 years	Teacher development.
Fleer et al., 2022	Q	Australia	28*	not  specified	Integration of science concepts into play-based settings; development of Conceptual PlayWorld model.
Fleer, 2023a Fleer, 2023b	Q	Australia	18/4 (3)	8 sessions/11 weeks	Development of different forms of imagining (affective, embodied, amplified, collective); creation of motivating conditions for science learning; collective problem-solving in imaginary  situations.
Li et al., 2022	Q	China	30/1	weekly/  1.5 h/ 2  years research period	Teacher developed skills in  child-centered problem-solving. Improved confidence in  teaching STEM concepts. Enhanced ability to balance  play and learning goals.
Ma et al., 2022 Ma et al., 2023 Zhang et al.,2025	Q	China	34/2	8 sessions	Active problem-solving. Personally meaningful  mathematical learning,  successful integration of  repeating pattern concept  into play activities. Development of teachers’ emotional awareness and pedagogical practices in play-based mathematics teaching, successful integration of new pedagogical approach, improved understanding of children’s learning processes.
Meng et al., 2022**	Q	China	10/5	10 weeks	Transformation of raw  emotions into conscious  feeling states, improved fear regulation in play situations.
Utami et al., 2022	Q	Indonesia	38/10	16 h of video observation	Development of  mathematical concepts and self-regulation through play,  creation of motivating  learning conditions by  teachers acting as play  partners.

Note. Q – qualitative study design; QE – quasi-experimental study design; RCT – randomized controlled trial; MM – mixed methods; *teachers only; **orphanage.

The review includes research reports from countries with diverse early childhood education (ECE) systems.  Finland (n = 3), Sweden (n = 1) implement comprehensive publicly-funded ECE systems emphasizing play-based learning, outdoor education, and holistic child development (Garvis & Ødegaard, 2022). Lithuania (n = 2) has transitioned toward child-centered education focusing on competence development while maintaining some structured learning elements (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019). Ireland (n = 1) implements the universal Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) scheme offering free preschool education (Hayes & O’Neill, 2019). Slovakia (n = 1) emphasizes preparation for primary education with a gradual shift toward inclusive practices and play-based methods (Tománková & Vávrová, 2021). Switzerland (n = 3) maintains a decentralized cantonal system with significant regional variations in provision and curriculum (Petitpierre & Gyger, 2020). The USA (n = 6) demonstrates a market-oriented approach with mixed funding sources and substantial state-level policy differences (OECD, 2021), while Australia (n = 13), where most of Conceptual PlayWorlds studies were conducted, implements a national quality framework supporting play-based pedagogical innovations that bridge imaginative play with intentional teaching (Fleer & Hammer, 2021). China (n = 5) and Indonesia (n = 1) represent rapidly evolving ECE systems with growing emphasis on quality standards amid significant rural-urban disparities in educational resources and approaches (Rao et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022). 

Participant Characteristics

The variation in participant number draws attention to limitations in generalizability and applicability of the sociodramatic play implementation in ECE settings. Over a half the studies (n = 18 of 27) had fewer than 50 child participants, 4 studies included approximately 100 child participants, and only 4 included over 200 child participants. One study reported only teacher participants. In total, the studies involved 1,937 child participants; participant numbers varied from nine (Levy et al., 1992) to 300+ (Brėdikytė, 2022). Some qualitative studies focused on a particular child and other children were addressed only as her playmates (Ferholt & Rainio, 2016; Levy et al., 1992;  and most of Conceptual PlayWorld studies). Five studies did not specify the number of teacher participants (Hollenstein et al., 2022; Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024; Levy et al., 1986; McCabe, 2017; Nicolopoulou et al., 2015; Vidal Carulla et al., 2021). Hakkarainen et al. (2013) analyzed findings from a longitudinal project and refer to a sample of 200+ teachers. Gmitrova (2013) reported 92 teacher participants. Seven studies included 10-30 teacher participants and the rest, 2-5 teacher participants (see Table 1).

Variation in children’s age was limited as an inclusion criteria: most studies (n = 22 of 27) exclusively reported on participants aged 3–6 years. One study included children aged 0–5 (Hakkarainen et al., 2013), three studies included children up to 7 years (Baumer et al., 2005; Fleer, 2023a; Fleer, 2023b; Hakkarainen, 2008) and one – up to 11 (Meng et al., 2022) as the study was carried out in an orphanage. 

Four studies focused on children from low-income backgrounds (Baumer et al., 2005; Dickinson et al., 2018; McCabe, 2017; Nicolopoulou et al., 2015); three studies reported a mix of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2013; Fleer et al., 2017; Vartiainen et al., 2024), others either did not specify income level (n = 16) or defined it as middle-class (n = 4). The variety of socio-economic backgrounds highlights the universal nature of sociodramatic play as a way to educate and develop children. 

Duration of Exposure 

Studies employing sociodramatic play strategies demonstrate significant variability in intervention duration, ranging from short-term implementations (e.g., Dickinson et al., 2018: 12 sessions over 12 weeks) to long-term approaches (e.g., Hakkarainen et al., 2013: a 7-year research period). Session frequency varied considerably across studies, with some adopting daily engagement models (e.g., Hollenstein et al., 2022: daily sessions for 3.5 months) while others followed less intensive schedules (e.g., Hakkarainen et al., 2013: once a week). The duration also shows diversity, from brief 15–30-minute episodes (e.g., Levy et al., 1992) to extended 2-hour sessions (e.g., Baumer et al., 2005; Ferholt & Rainio, 2016).

Conceptual PlayWorld interventions typically involve medium-length implementation periods, with studies ranging from 8 weeks (e.g., Ma et al., 2022) to 12 months (e.g., Fleer, 2020a), emphasizing a more sustained approach to play implementation. Weekly play sessions lasted approximately 1.5–2 hours (e.g., Chen et al., 2024; Disney & Li, 2022). 

This variability likely reflects both differences in conceptual frameworks and organizational constraints faced by researchers, as none of the reviewed studies provided explicit justification for their chosen implementation parameters.

Fidelity of Implementation 

In the majority of studies, interventions were implemented through structured protocols with clearly defined teacher roles, and implementation fidelity was actively monitored through ethnographic observation, audio recording, or research assistant oversight. Deviations from protocol were managed differently: while Dickinson et al. (2018) documented fidelity issues (e.g., 62% adherence during reading), other studies embraced flexibility, reflecting adaptations intrinsic to collaborative educational designs rather than protocol violations (Chen et al., 2024; Fleer et al., 2017 and others).  

Professional Development and Support of Sociodramatic Play Implementation

Teacher training for implementing sociodramatic play in classrooms demonstrated significant variation across studies that addressed this aspect in reports, ranging from minimal to extensive professional development programs (see Table 2).

Intensive training programs were exemplified by the Narrative Play and Learning project, which provided a six-month program for in-service teachers led by university researchers and experienced practitioners, with monthly meetings and personal mentors from the research team (Brėdikytė, 2022). Similarly comprehensive was a special three-year university extension program focused on “Narrative learning” (Hakkarainen, 2008). Other studies implemented more modest training approaches, such as half-day professional development sessions introducing pretend play, content knowledge, and gender-sensitive guided play (Hollenstein et al., 2022; Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024), or brief two-hour group training supplemented with detailed manuals (Nicolopoulou et al., 2015). The content of teacher training included theoretical foundations of play pedagogy, practical skills for observation and documentation (Gmitrova, 2013), specific intervention techniques (Richard et al., 2021), content knowledge across domains including mathematics (Disney & Li, 2022), science (Fleer, 2017), biodiversity concepts (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2013), and digital competencies (Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024).

Across all training models, a common element was the provision of practical guidance materials, detailed manuals or planning proformas to support independent implementation. Researchers commonly adopted a collaborative approach to teacher training, involving regular meetings and reflections on practice implementation (e.g., Fleer et al., 2020) or at least targeted feedback (Dickinson et al., 2018). Some studies incorporated video observation and analysis into their training programs, teaching educators how to observe, detect, and record children’s playing manifestations through practical video sessions (Brédikyté, 2022). A notable trend across studies was the initial intensive coaching decreasing over time to promote teacher autonomy (Dickinson et al., 2018; Disney et al., 2022; Fleer et al., 2020; McCabe et al., 2017).

In implementing sociodramatic play, specific tools were found to be effective. In Brėdikytė (2022), digital video recordings of initial play sessions served as a reflective tool, allowing teachers to self-assess their interactions with children. Watching these videos highlighted areas of frustration and prompted teachers to adjust their pedagogical approaches, making the recordings a critical cornerstone for professional reflection. Dickinson et al. (2018) introduced guidance cards detailing how to discuss, use key vocabulary, provide definitions, and elicit children’s responses. Teachers reported high fidelity in applying these strategies and valued the structured supports, which facilitated more consistent and effective engagement during play sessions.

Risk of Bias in Included Studies

The only RCT (Dickinson et al., 2018) was rated as raising some concerns overall, primarily due to inconsistent intervention delivery during play sessions and differential attrition. The eight quasi-experimental studies varied in overall risk: one was rated critical risk (Levy et al., 1986) due to the complete absence of a control group, three – serious risk (Baumer et al., 2005; Levy et al., 1992; McCabe, 2017), and three  –   moderate risk (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2013; Gmitrova, 2013; Nicolopoulou et al., 2015); one study provided insufficient information for an overall judgment (Richard et al., 2021). Confounding was the predominant source of bias across non-randomized studies. Measurement of outcomes was the strongest domain, with low risk ratings. Missing data bias was typically low, owing to comprehensive video recordings, interviews, and structured data collection, although attrition affected some studies, as in Baumer et al. (2005) with 33% missing data in the control group. 

Seven qualitative studies of different strategies of sociodramatic play implementation showed overall methodological quality moderate to high. All studies demonstrated clear and rich presentation of findings, and most provided sufficient justification for their qualitative approach. However, several systematic weaknesses were identified across the corpus. Reflexivity was the most consistent limitation: five of seven studies failed to adequately address the researcher–participant relationship, which is particularly concerning given that researchers frequently occupied dual roles as both intervention designers and data collectors. Analytical rigor was insufficient in five studies, with most lacking interrater reliability procedures or transparent coding protocols. Sampling strategies raised concerns in six studies, with volunteer and convenience samples predominating. Brėdikytė (2022) noted that volunteer teachers often possessed specific characteristics (e.g., higher motivation, openness to innovation) that may not represent the broader teaching population. The 11 qualitative Conceptual PlayWorld studies, reported across 18 papers, were assessed using a cluster appraisal approach rather than individual ratings, as the studies share a common theoretical framework and methodological design. Strengths of the cluster included rich multi-source data collection and clear, theoretically grounded presentation of findings. However, the same weaknesses were identified regarding reflexivity, analytical rigor, and sampling strategies.

Narrative Synthesis  

Sociodramatic Play Implementation Approaches 

Five approaches were identified, each differing in the degree and features of teacher involvement, integration of curriculum content, and structure of narrative and play (see Table 2).

Storytelling and story-acting (STSA) is a structured, child-centered curriculum module designed to promote preschoolers’ narrative, literacy, and social skills. It is a particular pedagogical model which refers specifically to Paley’s (1990) structured dictation-and-enactment module. During “choice time,” children voluntarily dictate stories to a teacher, who writes the stories verbatim with minimal intervention, occasionally asking clarifying questions. Each child then selects a role for themselves and chooses peers to act out the story. The teacher reads the story aloud and supervises its dramatization, ensuring all dictated stories are enacted in group time, fostering narrative sharing and collaborative engagement. The approach is grounded in Vygotskian theory, and integrates storytelling and pretend play to support both cognitive and socio-emotional development. For example, in Nicolopoulou et al. (2015), a teacher wrote down each child’s self-initiated, verbatim story with minimal intervention, occasionally asking clarifying questions such as “What happened next?” or “Is that the end?” During group time, the teacher read every story aloud while the child-author, having chosen a role and selected peers for the remaining parts, enacted it before the assembled class. Each child rotated through three roles: story-composer, actor, and audience member.

Playworlds are the immersive, co-created narrative worlds where children enact roles and solve problems within a structured story. Teachers facilitate entry and exit rituals, maintain narrative coherence, scaffold role-taking, and introduce problem-solving challenges linked to the story. Props, cultural tools, and negotiated storylines are employed to sustain engagement and deepen learning. For example, in Ferholt and Rainio’s (2016) Narnia Playworld, the teacher entered in a role as the White Witch and wove a previously excluded child’s disruptive proposal (to “blow up the whole school”) into the collective narrative, so that participation in the shared story became the vehicle for the child’s inclusion.

Conceptual PlayWorlds (CPW) integrate curriculum concepts such as mathematics, science, or engineering into narrative play. Teachers and children collaboratively create an immersive narrative environment, drawing on storybooks, children’s interests, or invented characters, and dramatize the plot together. The approach involves five key steps: selecting a story to engage children emotionally; designing a PlayWorld space; using structured routines for entering and exiting the PlayWorld; planning play inquiries or problem scenarios that challenge children’s skills and knowledge; and planning teacher interactions to scaffold conceptual learning in role. Educators take active roles as co-players, guiding the narrative, posing challenges, and ensuring opportunities for collaboration, engagement, and problem-solving. For example, in Zhang et al. (2025), teachers and children adapted a chapter of Journey to the West, entering the imaginary world through “a waterfall cave made of colored paper” and dramatizing a sequence of conceptual problems in role: rescuing the fake Monkey King (direction and orientation), crafting a weapon of matching height (measurement), and decorating it so that no three strips of one color appeared together (repeating patterns).

Play scaffolding (e.g., using drama or play materials) emphasizes teacher facilitation of pretend play with props, dramatization, and structured scenarios. Teachers select themes, provide materials and visual cues, model role-play interactions, and gradually delegate responsibility to the children while observing and supporting collaborative enactment. Special strategies include stepwise guidance, role rotation, and reflection discussions to consolidate cognitive and social skills. For example, in play-scaffolding studies, teachers selected a theme, provided props and visual cues, modelled role-play interactions, and gradually delegated responsibility to the children  (e.g., Gmitrova, 2013; McCabe, 2017).

Playful components in learning (play-based learning) are used as a context for academic tasks. Teachers construct playful learning environments, using props, toys, soundscapes, and scenario-based narratives to engage children in problem-solving and co-creation activities. Rotating roles, structured reflection, and linking playful activities to content objectives are emphasized. For example, in Dickinson et al. (2018), pretend play served as a structured context for vocabulary instruction: teachers used guidance cards specifying target words, definitions, and prompts to elicit children’s responses across a fixed sequence of short, scripted sessions. Play here functions as a vehicle for pre-defined academic content rather than as an open-ended imaginary world.

Table 2

Key Features of Sociodramatic Play Approaches

Approach	Outcome domain	Teacher involvement	Teacher support strategies
Storytelling and story-acting (STSA)	Development-focused (Nicolopoulou et al., 2015)	Record children’s stories, supervise enactment, minimal prompting	Brief PD sessions; short orientation or guidance materials
Playworlds	Development-focused (Baumer et al., 2005; Brėdikytė, 2022; Hakkarainen, 2008; Hakkarainen et al., 2013; Ferholt, Rainio, 2016) Maturity of play as an outcome (Hakkarainen, 2008; Hakkarainen et al., 2013; Ferholt, Rainio, 2016)	Facilitate entry/exit, scaffold roles, maintain narrative, introduce problem-solving	Intensive multi-week program; mentoring and structured meetings
Conceptual PlayWorlds (CPW)	Content-focused (Chen, 2024; Disney & Li, 2022; Fleer, 2017; Fleer, 2020a; Fleer, 2020b; Fleer et al., 2022; Fleer, 2023a; Fleer, 2023b; Li et al., 2022 Li & Disney, 2021; Ma et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2023; Utami et al., 2022; Zhang et al.,2025) Development-focused Fleer et al., 2017; Fleer et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2022*; Utami et al., 2022)	Co-create storyworld, pose challenges, guide learning, scaffold collaboration	Long, structured training (weeks/months); stepwise guidance and iterative reflection
Play scaffolding (e.g., using drama or play materials)	Content-focused (Edwards, Cutter-Mackenzie, 2013) Development-focused (Hollenstein et al., 2022; Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024 Levy et al., 1986; Levy et al., 1992) Maturity of play as an outcome (Gmitrova, 2013; McCabe, 2017)	Provide props, model roles, guide scenarios, gradually release control	Moderate PD sessions; manuals, stepwise coaching, feedback sessions
Playful components in learning (play-based learning)	Content-focused (Dickinson et al., 2018 Richard et al., 2021 Vartiainen et al., 2024 Vidal Carulla et al., 2021)	Set playful context, link to academic tasks, rotate roles, support reflection	Short PD sessions or workshops; manuals, structured activity cards, moderate guidance

Note. PD – professional development

The results indicate that some approaches, such as Playworlds and Conceptual PlayWorlds, require extensive preparation and high levels of teacher qualification, which is why teachers typically participate on a voluntary basis, with significant support from researchers. While the results of these approaches are valuable, they are often qualitatively documented and cannot be objectively measured. On the other hand, highly structured approaches with clearly measured outcomes implementing playful components in learning tend to struggle with fidelity issues, which is also problematic.

Pedagogical Competencies and Skills 

Implementing sociodramatic play in preschool requires educators to master a range of pedagogical skills and competencies. Teachers must be able to scaffold children’s play, extend role speech, monitor behaviors, and intervene sensitively without dominating the play (McCabe, 2017; Nicolopoulou et al., 2015; Richard et al., 2021). Expertise in narrative facilitation is essential, including co-constructing stories, improvising within play scenarios, and assuming dramatic roles to maintain engagement (Brėdikytė, 2022; Hakkarainen, 2008, 2013; McCabe, 2017). Educators require domain-specific knowledge, such as STEM, science, or digital literacy, to embed curriculum concepts meaningfully into play (Fleer, 2020a, 2020b; Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024). Competency in dynamic pedagogical positioning allows teachers to shift between observation, guidance, and co-play according to the children’s developmental and motivational needs (Disney & Li, 2022; Li et al., 2021; Utami et al., 2023). This is illustrated in Disney and Li’s (2022) analysis of a “Mathematical Playworld” based on the story “Room on the Broom.” Playing a witch and a dog, the teachers first took a “below” position, observing as the children built a broom for 13 characters but focused only on their own seats, “displaying a distinct lack of mathematical thinking or language” (p. 8). They then shifted to an “equal” position: “I’ve noticed that there are bigger seats and small seats,” one teacher remarked, while another asked, “So, does everyone have the same amount of room?” (p. 6). When one child still equated each block with one seat regardless of length, the teachers moved to an “above” position, physically seating children on long and short blocks to make the measurement concept concrete. This dynamic shifting enabled intentional concept teaching without abandoning the imaginary situation.

Social-emotional skills, including listening, turn-taking, and coordinating group actions, are critical for sustaining shared imaginative situation and motivating engagement (Brėdikytė, 2022; Meng et al., 2022; Utami et al., 2023). Teachers also need skills to facilitate higher-order thinking and executive function development within play (Fleer, 2020b; Fleer et al., 2020; Fleer, 2023b). Reflective practice and adaptability are essential, as educators must adjust strategies to children’s interests and developmental progress, co-constructing meaningful play experiences while integrating learning goals (Fleer, 2021; Ma et al., 2022, 2023; Nicolopoulou et al., 2015). Across the reviewed studies, effective implementation of sociodramatic play emerged as a multidimensional professional competency, encompassing narrative and dramatic skills, dynamic pedagogical positioning, domain-specific knowledge, social-emotional facilitation, and reflective adaptability.

Challenges and Limitations for Sociodramatic Play Implementation

Teachers encounter multiple barriers – personal, pedagogical, and systemic – that impede the effective implementation of sociodramatic play. At the personal level, educators frequently lack improvisation skills essential for spontaneous and authentic play participation (Brėdikytė, 2022). Many experience anxiety in unpredictable situations, demonstrate a persistent need to control activities, lack patience, rush sessions, and inadvertently overshadow children’s initiatives (Brėdikytė, 2022). Transitioning from observer to active participant in children’s play is particularly difficult, with some teachers perceiving engagement in play as contrary to their professional identity (Dickinson et al., 2018). Teachers’ own words captured this shift vividly. Reviewing video of their first play sessions, one teacher admitted: “I didn’t notice it [my behavior] until I started filming […] when I watched the footage, I realized, it’s wrong!” (Brėdikytė, 2022, p. 599). Teachers listed the behaviors they struggled to overcome: “a constant desire to control and guide children,” “lack of patience,” “continuous rush,” “seeking the result,” “overshadowing the children” (Brėdikytė, 2022, p. 599) and identified “leaving the comfort zone” by “taking a role and playing with children” as the hardest step (p. 599). In some contexts, such as in China, cultural tendencies to conceal personal feelings further limit the open dialogue and self-reflection necessary for adopting new pedagogical approaches (Zhang et al., 2025). The emotional weight of pedagogical change is illustrated by Teacher Qing, who, after a session in which she could not respond to children’s unexpected difficulties in measurement, shed tears during the collective reflection: “I feel like I am dragging everyone down, even with all the preparation we have done, but I still need to improve my ability to respond to my children spontaneously and not just teach them mathematics concepts. At that moment … I did not know what to do as a character” (Zhang et al., 2025, p. 9). She traced this difficulty to her habitual practice: “I normally follow a structured lesson plan to teach mathematics.… One disadvantage of placing extensive reliance on teachers’ planned instructions is that it fails to acknowledge children’s abilities and their perspectives” (Zhang et al., 2025, p. 9).

Pedagogically, many educators report feeling inadequately prepared and lacking confidence, particularly regarding digital competencies needed to guide children’s understanding of technological concepts (Hollenstein & Vogt, 2024). Similarly, teachers often express limited confidence in their scientific knowledge (Fleer, 2023) and frequently avoid teaching science due to insufficient expertise (Fleer et al., 2022). Engineering concepts pose additional challenges, as teachers often struggle to recognize engineering affordances within play (Fleer, 2020). Beyond content knowledge, teachers face the challenge of balancing structured guidance with child-led exploration. Excessive or inappropriate engagement can disrupt the flow of children’s play and agency (Hollenstein, 2024). This tension is especially pronounced in mathematical learning, where educators must introduce concepts without reverting to traditional instructional methods (Disney & Li, 2022). Teachers often struggle to determine when to step aside or fully participate (Vartiainen, 2024) and frequently misunderstand pretend play as merely a resting activity or as beneficial only when it emerges spontaneously from children rather than through adult facilitation (Gmitrova, 2013; McCabe, 2017).

Systemic challenges further complicate implementation. Time constraints limit opportunities for teachers to plan play sessions and to work with multiple small groups (Dickinson et al., 2018), and competing academic demands create tension between play-based approaches and traditional curriculum expectations (Baumer et al., 2005; McCabe, 2017). Implementation fidelity varies, with some educators embracing new approaches enthusiastically while others demonstrate resistance or inconsistency (Nicolopoulou et al., 2015).

Child Development Outcomes 

The outcomes reported across the included studies were categorized into three domains: content-focused, development-focused, and maturity of play as an outcome (see Table 2). Content-focused outcomes refer to the acquisition of knowledge or skills in specific areas, such as vocabulary, mathematical concepts, scientific understanding, or sustainability learning. For instance, Dickinson et al. (2018) reported gains in receptive and expressive vocabulary after 12 sessions of 15–20 minutes each over 12 weeks, while Edwards and Cutter-Mackenzie (2013) measured learning of biodiversity concepts across three sessions. Development-focused outcomes targeted children’s overall developmental progress, encompassing self-regulation, executive functions, and social competence. Nicolopoulou et al. (2015) examined social competence and self-regulation, while Fleer et al. (2017) focused on executive functions development. Richard et al. (2021) specifically measured emotion comprehension and prosocial behavior. The maturity of play as an outcome was examined through indicators of play development, sophistication, collaboration, or creative engagement during play (Ferholt, Rainio, 2016; Gmitrova, 2013; Hakkarainen, 2008; Hakkarainen et al., 2013; McCabe, 2017). In a multilingual group, one teacher observed a “‘burst’ of children’s language … and sociodramatic role-play appeared with lots of interactions among children from different linguistic backgrounds” (Brėdikytė, 2022, p. 602).

Positive effects were consistently reported across multiple studies and all the outcome domains. However, some results were inconsistent or limited in effect. Baumer (2005) found no statistically significant improvement in linguistic complexity following Playworld interventions, even though other language measures showed positive gains. The study by Vidal Carulla et al. (2021) acknowledged limitations in their research design for exploring working memory development, noting that while attention shifting and inhibitory control showed clear benefits, working memory outcomes were less conclusive. Dickinson et al. (2018) found that while both play-based and read-only conditions showed significant vocabulary gains, the addition of play did not produce significantly better outcomes than reading alone. Some Conceptual PlayWorld studies highlighted challenges in consistently achieving pedagogical goals, with teacher experience and engagement influencing outcomes across sessions (Fleer et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2023).

Teacher Development Outcomes

Across the studies emphasizing teacher outcomes, changes in pedagogical practices, professional skills, and emotional engagement were documented. Teachers demonstrated improvements in scaffolding strategies, role adoption, and facilitation of child-centered problem solving (Li et al., 2022; Utami et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2025). Increased confidence, emotional awareness, and greater adaptability in play facilitation were also reported (Fleer, 2021; Fleer et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022, 2023). Longitudinal studies highlighted improvements in the integration of curriculum content into play and in creating motivating learning environments (Brėdikytė, 2022; Fleer, 2020b; Hakkarainen et al., 2013).

Discussion

Summary of Evidence

This systematic review synthesized evidence from 27 studies (described in 35 papers) examining sociodramatic play strategies in ECE settings across diverse international contexts. The review provides a clear classification of sociodramatic play implementation approaches, identifying key teacher competencies needed for successful implementation, and highlighting barriers faced by educators. These findings directly address the identified gaps, such as the lack of systematic implementation of play in educational practices.

The review revealed five main implementation models: Storytelling and Story-Acting (STSA), Playworlds, Conceptual PlayWorlds, Play Scaffolding, and Playful Components in Learning. These approaches are described not only in experimental studies but also in theoretical articles (Novlyanskaya, 2025; Veresov et al., 2025). Child development outcomes were broadly positive across three domains: content, development, and maturity of play itself. However, some null findings (Baumer, 2005; Dickinson et al., 2018; Fleer et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2023; Vidal Carulla et al., 2021) are methodologically important: they suggest that the benefits of sociodramatic play may be domain-specific and that the mere presence of play does not guarantee learning and development. 

Teacher outcomes included enhanced pedagogical practices, improved professional skills, and deeper emotional engagement with children’s play and learning processes.

The review identified essential pedagogical competencies required for effective implementation that strongly resonate with Vygotskian notions of the teacher as a more knowledgeable other who operates within the child’s zone of proximal development, providing support that is responsive to moment-by-moment shifts in children’s engagement and understanding (Vygotsky, 2016). Teachers must be able to enter imaginary situations authentically, sustain narrative coherence while reaching educational goals, and model the metacommunicative negotiations that characterize mature pretend play. This performative competence is distinct from traditional instructional skills and may explain why many teachers report low confidence in implementing sociodramatic play despite general pedagogical expertise. This tension is not merely technical but reflects deeper theoretical questions about the nature of play and learning (Serafimovich & Zakharova, 2025). Significant barriers to implementation were noted, spanning personal limitations, pedagogical challenges, and systemic constraints. 

The present review’s findings converge with Skene et al.’s (2022) systematic review and meta-analysis of guided play in educational contexts, which found that guidance during play can enhance children’s learning and development. The present review extends this work by specifying the forms that guidance takes in sociodramatic play contexts and by highlighting the importance of teacher competencies.

Implications for Research and Practice

There is a clear need for more rigorous research designs, including larger sample sizes, randomized controlled trials with appropriate controls, and consistent reporting of intervention parameters to strengthen evidence quality. Researchers should develop and validate specific instruments for measuring the quality of sociodramatic play implementation and its distinct contributions to child development, beyond general measures of play quality. Extended studies tracking both implementation fidelity and developmental outcomes over multiple years would significantly enhance understanding of long-term impacts and sustainability. Research examining how sociodramatic play approaches can be effectively adapted across diverse cultural and educational contexts is needed, particularly investigating how cultural values influence implementation processes.

Effective implementation of sociodramatic play requires investment in teacher professional development. More detailed investigation into how teachers develop competence in sociodramatic play facilitation over time would inform more effective professional development approaches. Education programs should incorporate specific training in narrative facilitation, improvisation skills, and disciplinary knowledge integration through play, addressing the identified competency gaps. Educational systems should develop comprehensive implementation frameworks providing educators with structured guidance, observation tools, and reflection protocols to support consistent application. Establishing collaborative networks of practitioners implementing sociodramatic play could address the confidence and competency barriers identified, facilitating peer learning and ongoing support. Fostering a culture that values reflective practice and open dialogue is critical to overcoming personal and systemic barriers, enabling teachers to implement meaningful, developmentally appropriate sociodramatic play.

Conclusion

Despite the substantial body of evidence supporting the use of play for developmental and educational purposes, there is a notable gap in research demonstrating how teachers working across various curricula can effectively implement collective sociodramatic play in their daily practice. This disconnect between theoretical understanding and practical application represents a significant challenge for educational settings. Key findings highlight that widespread implementation of sociodramatic play requires approaches that are both practically accessible and intrinsically motivating to teachers, while reliably generating observable and impactful results for children.

This review synthesized evidence from diverse methodological approaches, educational systems, and cultural contexts, providing a nuanced understanding of play implementation globally. Detailed examination of pedagogical approaches, required teacher competencies, and implementation challenges offers practical insights for practitioners. The proposed typology of five implementation approaches provides conceptual clarity in a field characterized by terminological inconsistency, facilitating more precise cross-study comparison. By incorporating both quantitative and qualitative studies, the review captures both the measurable impacts and the rich contextual factors influencing implementation effectiveness. Unlike many educational reviews that focus solely on child outcomes, this study explicitly addressed teacher development as a critical component of successful implementation.

Future research in this area should focus on several directions. Researchers need to explore how sociodramatic play can be effectively adapted across diverse cultural contexts, paying special attention to the influence of cultural values and educational systems on implementation processes and outcomes. It is also important to investigate the most effective models of professional development for teachers, including optimal training duration, content, and follow-up support strategies that would help build competence in sociodramatic play facilitation. Finally, there is a need to develop specific assessment tools to measure the quality of sociodramatic play implementation and its unique contribution to child development, going beyond general play measures.

Limitations

Limitations include high risk of bias due to the non-randomized designs, small and heterogeneous samples, and selection bias in teacher recruitment, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. The studies varied considerably in how they reported intervention duration, frequency, and intensity, making direct comparisons challenging. An analysis of potential moderators, such as teacher experience, cultural context, and child age, was not conducted in this review due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and the lack of consistent reporting on these variables across the studies. A significant proportion of qualitative studies (11 of 18) focused on Conceptual PlayWorlds developed by M. Fleer, potentially overrepresenting this specific approach.

A further limitation concerns the language and database scope of the search. Restricting eligibility to English-language articles indexed in ScienceDirect and PubMed excluded research published in Spanish and Portuguese and in regional databases (e.g., SciELO, Redalyc, LILACS). Consequently, the substantial body of Latin American scholarship on the development of children’s play activity is not represented in this synthesis, which limits the geographical and cultural generalizability of the findings.

Author Contributions

V.S. and N.V. conceived of the idea. V.S.  designed the systematic review protocol and performed the literature search.  V.S. and M.G. screened the studies and extracted the data. N.V. verified the study selection criteria and the data extraction process, and provided methodological oversight for the systematic review approach. V.S. and M.G. conducted the synthesis of findings and interpreted the results in the context of early childhood education. N.V. contributed critical insights to the theoretical framing of teacher implementation of sociodramatic play. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Baumer, S., Ferholt, B., & Lecusay, R. (2005). Promoting narrative competence through adult–child joint pretense: Lessons from the Scandinavian educational practice of playworld. Cognitive Development, 20(4), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.08.003

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Bodrova, E.V., & Leong, D.J. (2025). Ostrovok amplifikatsii v okeane akseleratsii [An island of amplification in the ocean of acceleration]. Natsionalnii Psikhologisheskii Zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], 20(3), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2025.0303

Bower, C. A., Zimmermann, L., Verdine, B. N., Spiewak Toub, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2025). What does play have to do with it? A concrete and digital spatial intervention with 3-year-olds predicts spatial and math learning. Developmental Psychology, 61(3), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001904

Bredikyte, M. (Ed.). (2017). Narrative environments for play and learning (NEPL): Guidelines for kindergarten and school teachers working with 3–8 year-old children. Publishing House of the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences.

Brėdikytė, M. (2022). Adult participation in the creation of narrative playworlds: Challenges and contradictions. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(3), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2022.2107895

Bulunuz, M. (2013). Teaching science through play in kindergarten: Does integrated play and science instruction build understanding? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789195

Chen, H., Disney, L., & Li, L. (2024). Studying children’s motives in mathematical problem-solving during transition from kindergarten to school: A Conceptual PlayWorld approach. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 48, 100850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2024.100850

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP qualitative studies checklist. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

DePascale, M., & Ramani, G. B. (2024). Promoting children’s mathematical and statistical understanding through parent-child math games. Cognitive Development, 71, 101480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101480

Diamond, A., Barnett, W.S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318(5855), 1387–1388. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151148

Dickinson, D.K., Collins, M.F., Nesbitt, K., Toub, T.S., Hassinger-Das, B., Hadley, E.B., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R.M. (2018). Effects of teacher-delivered book reading and play on vocabulary learning and self-regulation among low-income preschool children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 20(2), 136-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2018.1483373

Disney, L., & Li, L. (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, 103706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103706Get rights and content

Edwards, S., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2013). Pedagogical play types: What do they suggest for learning about sustainability in early childhood education? International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-013-0082-5

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe: 2019 edition (Eurydice Report). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2797/966808

Ferholt, B., & Rainio, A.P. (2016). Teacher support of student engagement in early childhood: Embracing ambivalence through playworlds. Early Years, 36(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1141395

Fleer, M. (2017). Scientific playworlds: A model of teaching science in play-based settings. Research in Science Education, 49(5), 1257–1278.

Fleer, M. (2020a). Engineering playworld: A model of practice to support children to collectively design, imagine and think using engineering concepts. Research in Science Education, 52(2), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09970-6

Fleer, M. (2020b). Studying the relations between motives and motivation: How young children develop a motive orientation for collective engineering play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24, 100355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100355

Fleer, M. (2021). An educational experiment into how to bring discipline concepts into play: How a theoretical problem acts as a source of teacher development. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin, 14(4), 72–103. https://doi.org/10.11621/vsp.2021.04.03

Fleer, M. (2023a). The role of imagination in science education in the early years under the conditions of a Conceptual PlayWorld. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 42, 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100753

Fleer, M. (2023b). Are we play-proofing preschools, kindergartens, and schools? Conceptual PlayWorlds as the source of children’s development of imagination and learning. American Journal of Play, 15(3), 302–332.

Fleer, M., Fragkiadaki, G., & Rai, P. (2022). The place of theoretical thinking in professional development: Bringing science concepts into play practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 32, 100591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100591

Fleer, M., & Hammer, M. (2021). Conceptual playworlds: Foregrounding imagination and creativity as foundational for children’s learning. In L. Arnott & K. Wall (Eds.), Research through play: Participatory methods in early childhood (pp. 45–61). SAGE Publications.

Fleer, M., Veresov, N., Harrison, L., & Walker, S. (2017). Working with teachers’ pedagogical strengths: The design of executive function activities for play-based programs. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(4), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.4.06

Fleer, M., Walker, S., White, A., Veresov, N., & Duhn, I. (2020). Playworlds as an evidenced-based model of practice for the intentional teaching of executive functions. Early Years, 42(4-5), 572-586. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2020.1835830

Garvis, S., & Ødegaard, E.E. (Eds.). (2022). Nordic perspectives on early childhood education and care. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003159124

Gmitrova, V. (2013). Teaching to play performing a main role: Effective method of pretend play facilitation in preschool-age children. Early Child Development and Care, 183(11), 1705–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.746970

Hakkarainen, P. (2008). The challenges and possibilities of a narrative learning approach in the Finnish early childhood education system. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(5), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2008.12.008

Hakkarainen, P., Brėdikytė, M., Jakkula, K., & Munter, H. (2013). Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a narrative play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789189

Hayes, N., & O’Neill, S. (2019). Little changes, big results: The impact of simple changes to early years learning environments. Early Years, 39(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2017.1342223

Hollenstein, L., Thurnheer, S., & Vogt, F. (2022). Problem solving and digital transformation: Acquiring skills through pretend play in kindergarten. Education Sciences, 12(2), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020092

Hollenstein, L., & Vogt, F. (2024). Digital education through guided pretend play. Learning and Instruction, 93, 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101945

Levy, A.K., Schaefer, L., & Phelps, P.C. (1986). Increasing preschool effectiveness: Enhancing the language abilities of 3- and 4-year-old children through planned sociodramatic play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(86)90024-4

Levy, A.K., Wolfgang, C.H., & Koorland, M.A. (1992). Sociodramatic play as a method for enhancing the language performance of kindergarten-age students. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(92)90007-L

Li, L., & Disney, L. (2021). Young children’s mathematical problem solving and thinking in a playworld. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00373-y

Li, L., Fleer, M., & Yang, N. (2022). Studying teacher professional development: How a Chinese kindergarten teacher brings play practices into the program. Early Years, 42(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.2000942

Lillard, A.S., Lerner, M.D., Hopkins, E.J., Dore, R.A., Smith, E.D., & Palmquist, C.M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321

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

Ma, Y., Wang, Y., Fleer, M., & Li, L. (2022). Promoting Chinese children’s agency in science learning: Conceptual PlayWorld as a new play practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 33, 100614. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2023.2200020

Marulis, L.M., & Neuman, S.B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310377087

McCabe, U. (2017). The drama in sociodramatic play: Implications for curriculum and pedagogy. NJ: Drama Australia Journal, 41(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14452294.2017.1329689

Meng, X., Fleer, M., Li, L., & Hammer, M. (2022). A cultural-historical study of the development of emotion regulation through collective play in an institutional care setting in China. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 32, 100590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100590

Smits-van der Nat, M., Wilt, F. van der Meeter, M., & van der Veen, C. (2024). The value of pretend play for social competence in early childhood: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09884-z

Nicolopoulou, A., Cortina, K.S., Ilgaz, H., Cates, C.B., & de Sá, A.B. (2015). Using a narrative- and play-based activity to promote low-income preschoolers’ oral language, emergent literacy, and social competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.006

Novlyanskaya, Z.N. (2025). Perekhod ot igry k ucheniiu v kurse literaturnogo chteniia v sisteme razvivaiushchego obucheniia D.B. El'konina i V.V. Davydova. [Transition from play to learning in the course of literary reading in the system of developmental education by D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriia 14. Psikhologiia [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin, Series 14], 48(3), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.11621/LPJ-25-34

OECD. (2021). Education at a glance 2021: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en

Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Gluud, C., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Higgins, J.P.T. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Paley, V.G. (1990). The boy who would be a helicopter. Harvard University Press.

Petitpierre, G., & Gyger, M. (2020). Early childhood education and care in Switzerland: Challenges and recent developments. In S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, & H. Harju-Luukkainen (Eds.), International perspectives on early childhood education and care (pp. 148–162). Routledge.

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Garner, P. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC methods programme (Version 1). Lancaster University. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1018.4643

Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497265

Pyle, A., DeLuca, C., & Danniels, E. (2017). A scoping review of research on play-based pedagogies in kindergarten education. Review of Education, 5(3), 311–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3097

Rao, N., Sun, J., Chen, E.E., & Ip, P. (2021). Effectiveness of early childhood interventions in promoting cognitive development in developing countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hong Kong Journal of Paediatrics, 26(1), 23–36.

Richard, S., Baud-Bovy, G., Clerc-Georgy, A., & Gentaz, E. (2021). The effects of a pretend play-based training designed to promote the development of emotion comprehension, emotion regulation, and prosocial behaviour in 5- to 6-year-old Swiss children. British Journal of Psychology, 112(3), 690–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12484

Ryabkova, I.A., Sokolova, S.P., & Lvova, N.V. (2025). Igra ponaroshku: priniatie det'mi rannego vozrasta mnimoi situatsii. [Pretend play: Young children’s acceptance of a make-believe situation]. Natsionalnii Psikhologisheskii Zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], 20(4), 33–45.https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2025.0403

Serafimovich, I.V., & Zakharova, T.N. (2025). Vzaimodeistvie kognitivnykh i lichnostnykh resursov pedagogov kak usloviye sovershenstvovaniya kachestva doshkol’nogo obrazovaniia [Interaction of cognitive and personal resources of preschool teachers as the condition of improving the quality of education]. Sovremennoe doshkol'noe obrazovanie [Preschool Education Today], 19(4), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.24412/2782-4519-2025-4130-30-45

Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C.M., Byrne, E.M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E.C., & Ramchandani, P.G. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 93(4), 1162–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13730

Smilansky, S., & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play: A medium for promoting cognitive, socio-emotional and academic development in young children. Psychosocial and Educational Publishers.

Sterne, J.A. C., Hernán, M.A., Reeves, B.C., Savović, J., Berkman, N.D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D.G., Ansari, M.T., Boutron, I., Carpenter, J.R., Chan, A.-W., Churchill, R., Deeks, J.J., Hróbjartsson, A., Kirkham, J., Jüni, P., Loke, Y.K., Pigott, T.D., … Higgins, J.P.T. (2016). ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 355, i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

Sterne, J.A.C., Savović, J., Page, M.J., Elbers, R.G., Blencowe, N.S., Boutron, I., Cates, C.J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M.S., Eldridge, S.M., Hernán, M.A., Hopewell, S., Hróbjartsson, A., Junqueira, D.R., Jüni, P., Kirkham, J.J., Lasserson, T., Li, T., McAleenan, A., … Higgins, J. P. T. (2019). RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898

Sun, J., Rao, N., & Yu, S. (2022). Early childhood education and care in China: Policies and trends in the context of ‘two-child policy’. In I. Sussmuth & T. Soo-Hoo (Eds.), The landscape of preschool education: Cross-national and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 112–128). Routledge.

Tománková, D., & Vávrová, S. (2021). Implementation of play-based pedagogies in Slovak early childhood education: Challenges and opportunities. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(3), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1928718

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(1), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-022-00333-y

Vartiainen, J., Sormunen, K., & Kangas, J. (2024). Relationality of play and playfulness in early childhood sustainability education. Learning and Instruction, 93, 101963.

Veresov, N.N., Veraksa, A.N., & Plotnikova, V.A. (2025). PlayWorld to promote narrative development: Evidence from a double-blind control experiment. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 18(3), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2025.0309

Vidal Carulla, C., Christodoulakis, N., & Adbo, K. (2021). Development of preschool children’s executive functions throughout a play-based learning approach that embeds science concepts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020588

Vygotsky, L.S. (2016). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 3–25.

Weisberg, D.S., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R.M. (2013). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12015

Zhang, W., Li, L., & Disney, L. (2025). Exploring a Chinese kindergarten teacher’s perezhivanie when teaching mathematics in an educational experiment. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 54, 100938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2025.100938