Introduction

Children’s play has a central role in the everyday educational reality of early childhood settings. As a common practice, play explorations act as tools for supporting children’s development. However, for most infants and toddlers’ engaging in play, especially imaginary play, this constitutes a new reality. The early experience of imaginary play which involves improvisation and extending stories as a part of the institutional practice poses continuous challenges for infants, toddlers, and educators (Fragkiadaki et al., 2021; Fleer, 2018, Fleer, 2015). Imaginary play is under-researched in infancy and toddlerhood. Not much is known about how children become oriented towards imaginary play and the formation of imagination.

To better understand the genesis of imaginary play, we examined the place of concrete objects in toddler play, with a special focus on how objects become props for imagining. In this study we conceptualised props as concrete objects that acted as placeholders of meaning, as accessories, figurines, and even pictures books. We were interested to know the role of props in creating the unique conditions needed for the development of toddlers' imaginary play. The paper begins with a theoretical cultural-historical overview of what is known about children’s play, imagination, and the mediating role of concrete props, followed by a discussion on the research methodology and the related study design. Three key points emerged from the data analysis: a) props created the conditions for the development of toddlers’ imagining, (b) the more complex toddler’s imagining, fewer props were used, and (c) the toddlers transformed the meaning of concrete props to symbolic forms. The study concludes by discussing the findings and the theoretical insights relevant to the formation of imagination in toddlerhood (Figs. 1, 2 and 3).

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Lachlan is wearing a zebra suit and Zandar is wearing a tiger suit as they become animals from the storybook. b Zandar roars. c Karen, Zandar, Lachlan exploring the animal figures. d Lachlan playing with the elephant figurine

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

a Karen and the toddlers are becoming different animals before entering the imaginary jungle. Zandar is a Zebra. b Talya is a Zebra looking for the lost flamingo under the river. c Toddlers find the lost flamingo feathers

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

a Toddlers are under the water looking for the lost flamingo

Full size image

Cultural-Historical Concept of Play and Imagination

Vygotsky (1966) suggested that play is the main source of development in early childhood and children give meaning to things when in imaginary play. Vygotsky emphasises that play creates a space for children to use their imagination and experience to engage socially and explore the rules and roles of their community. The space created by the imaginary situation of play allows children to play with objects with meanings assigned to them, leading to the development of higher mental processes. Both play and the environment are significant factors contributing to children’s developing imagination (Vygotsky, 1966, 2004). The more the child experiences, the more fertile the children’s imagination, and studying this is foundational for understanding children’s play. In play, a child creates a new reality using acquired impressions from their everyday experiences. This unique and dependent relation between children’s everyday experiences and imagination supports children to see possibilities in play, making both experience and imagination mutually dependent.

The Mediating Role of Tools

Vygotsky (1997) emphasises that tools play an auxiliary role in individuals' mental functioning, creating a mediating activity that is considered a psychological tool. These psychological tools help individuals develop their perceptions and act as mediating agents that support the development of higher mental functioning (Kozulin, 2003; Vygotsky, 1994, 1998). Vygotsky (1994) highlights that children’s development depends on the mediating agents present in their interactions with the environment. These mediating agents can be humans and symbolic concrete objects. The role of the human mediator initially appears in the form of actual social interaction and later as an inner psychological form, elucidating the idea of how activities that start as an interaction become part of children’s psychological functions (Vygotsky, 1997).

Likewise, concrete materials as mediators allow children to master the symbolic form represented in concrete concepts (DeLoach, 1995). The relationships between the human and the symbolic concrete are mediated and do not emerge spontaneously. They are systematically formed, highlighting the importance of the relationships between symbolic concrete materials and the human aspects of mediation. Children’s cognitive development benefits from collaborating within a dialectical system of mediation between human and symbolic concrete tools. Such appropriations are dependent on the goals that the human mediator sets for the concrete materials as mediators made available to the children (Kozulin, 2003). The collaboration between the human mediator and the symbolic concrete form is essential because adults give meaning to objects during social relations. Objects and actions hold cultural rules, values, and norms (Kozulin, 2003). The cultural conventions infused in these symbolic concrete forms have purpose and meaning, and when mediated become personally meaningful to children.

A cultural-historical perspective views concrete objects as cultural tools, the function of which is adaptive depending on the activities and interactions within the social context (Tudge & Odera-Wanga, 2009). Research into toddler play must therefore acknowledge the importance of concrete objects acting as mediating tools. Moreover, knowing how objects become connected to children’s everyday lives, and the cultural significance they represent (Holzman, 2009), could give insights into how concrete objects become props in children’s imaginary play. When concrete objects are situated in children’s environment and are given meaning by them, we can better understand their significance for children’s cultural knowledge, and how props may serve as a mediating tool in play. Whilst this theoretical frame highlights the changing nature of objects in play acting as props for preschoolers, it does not address the genesis and development of imagination in play during toddlerhood where objects take on more importance. The current study seeks to fill this gap. We suggest that knowing more about how objects become props in play will contribute to better understanding the development of imagination during this cultural age period.

Play in the Toddler Age Period

Play is understood as the most critical activity throughout childhood, across home, childcare, and school (Fleer, 2013) allowing progressive and significant physical, social, cognitive, and emotional development for children (Garner & Bergen, 2015). In the past three decades, the understanding of play in early childhood has increased exponentially, with a focus on the development of children aged three to six. The conceptualisation of play as a developmental phenomenon has resulted in trends of systematic studies on different types of play in childhood, giving rise to the assumptions concerning play at various stages within dominant cultures and institutions (Garner & Bergen, 2015). However, our understanding of play and the development of young children from birth to three years is limited.

Numerous empirical studies conducted since 1980 on young children’s development highlight the influence of exploratory play using objects. (Cohen & Tomlinson-Keasey, 1980; Main, 1983, Tamiis-Le Monda et al., 1994; Farver & Wimbarti, 1995; Pierce, 1999; Shin et al., 2004; Page et al., 2010; Wormann et al., 2012). The studies outline the mother–child relationship through play exploration with objects (Cohen & Tomlinson-Keasey, 1980) in cognitive and language development (Main, 1983). Two studies highlighted the importance of mothers’ knowledge of child development and their skills in creating play areas that supported symbolic and non-symbolic play (Pierce, 1999; Tamis-Le Monda et al., 1994). The role of mothers acting intentionally to foster emotional and cognitive development was discussed (Page et al., 2010; Shin et al., 2004). Tamis-Le Monda and Bornstein (1994) study investigated toddler and mother play using concrete objects to understand the developmental changes in the toddlers and mothers. The study highlights the simultaneous development in both toddlers and adults but does not indicate the role of concrete objects in play.

Fromberg (2002) elaborates that play is an intrinsically motivating activity for infants and toddlers, explicitly focusing on object play. Infants’ stability and movability increase over time, leading to the emergence of functional play (object play with relational goals) as they enter toddlerhood (Garner & Bergen, 2015). The toddlers enter an age of experimentation stating the change from exploration to play. Karpov (2005) indicates how infants develop emotional interactions with their caregivers through ‘infant-caregiver joint object-centred activity. Karpov highlights the mediating role of objects and adults in emotionally communicating with infants. However, the study does not highlight how joint object play between adults and children leads to imaginary play.

Henning and Kirova (2012) draw upon the understanding of Vygotsky’s and Leontiev’s idea of the environment where the child's use of concrete materials mediates their learning. They highlight how the deliberate use of cultural materials by the adults’ supports children in bridging the gap between the home and classroom to 'find a unified, universal formula for relations with the environment’ (Leontiev, 2005, p. 10). The study considered concrete materials as an environment that guided children towards their learning in meaningful ways.

Whilst the studies discussed above provide a view of how infants and toddlers engage with early forms of play (exploratory) using concrete objects with support from adults, the research does not address what this means for toddler development of imagination through play which the present study addresses. Therefore, the research question guiding the study was – How do concrete props support the development of imagination during toddlerhood? The present study uses Conceptual PlayWorld (CPW) to understand the development of imagination by toddlers. This conception was born from research with older children and sits within a broader theoretical framing of playworld.

Playworld and Conceptual PlayWorld

Playworld introduced by Lindqvist (1995), focuses on the concepts of imagination and creativity where children and adults create a mutual imaginary space of meaning using stories. Many studies have been undertaken using playworld in different countries. Such as Australia (Fleer, 2017); China (Fleer et al., 2018), Finland (Hakkarainen, 2010), Italy (Talamo, Pozzi and Mellini, 2009), Japan (Marjanovic-Shane et al., 2011), Lithuania (Hakkarainen et al., 2013), Serbia (Marjanovic-Shane et al., 2011), Sweden (Nilsson et al., 2018) and the US (Ferholt and Lecusay, 2009). These studies focus on children four years and older. However, Lindqvist’s study in 2001 highlights the physical environment accompanied by dramatisation as an opportunity for toddlers to engage with imaginary play, and this research lends support for a playworld intervention for better understanding the roles of props within the environment.

Related to Lindqvist’s conceptualisation of playworlds is a CPW intervention, where imagination in play and learning is the focus (Fleer, 2018, 2019). Two studies on infants’ and toddlers’ imaginary play using CPW have been undertaken. Li’s (2020) study shows educators’ affective engagement during the embodiment, gesturing and vocalisation in support of developing collective play. The study does not highlight the development of imagination in toddlers. This was taken up by Fragkiadaki et al.’s (2021) study, which investigated the genesis of imagination in infants. The study reveals how teachers as play partners introduced diverse forms of imagining, and in so doing made explicit collective development of imagining by infants. The studies by Lindqvist (2001), Li (2020), and Fragkiadaki et al., (2021) provide an understanding of toddlers’ imaginary play, but the role of concrete props in the development of imaginary play by infants and toddlers has not been explored. Children’s ability to move from modelled real-life actions, relationships with others, and concrete objects in social relations, to abstracting and enabling playful and symbolic use of objects are not well known for the toddler period. The concrete objects present in the child’s environment are an integral element and not only an external factor. A deeper exploration of the relationship between the concrete materials and toddler play could give insights into the early development of imagination. These key dimensions give insights into the focus of the present study which sought to explore how concrete props create conditions for the development of imagination during toddlers’ play. Within this framework our research question was formed: How do concrete objects act as props in support of the early development of toddlers’ imagination?

Methodological Framework

The Study Design

We used an educational experiment to answer the question driving the study. An educational experiment is founded on a cultural-historical methodology where a collaboration between researchers and participants is formulated around a theoretical problem (Hedegaard, 2008). In our study this cooperation between researchers and educators centred on the implementation of a CPW intervention, which enabled a dialectical relationship between the educators’ pedagogy and the researcher’s theoretical knowledge of imagination as a psychological function. We studied the development of toddler imagining through a series of micro-genetic transitions over time within a CPW. The CPW model involves five key characteristics:

  1. 1.

    Selection of a story relevant to the toddlers’ age, interest, and experiences that introduced a problem.

  2. 2.

    Designing a space to allow children to explore in different ways the problem that needs to be solved

  3. 3.

    Planning the entry and exit into the imaginary space creating a collective experience

  4. 4.

    Planning inquiries based on the story plot to explore different concepts and

  5. 5.

    Planning teachers/ educators' roles and interactions to build conceptual learning

A CPW based on toddlers’ interest in the book ‘Follow that Tiger’ (Joyce, 2016) was planned. The story’s plot is about a tiger who meets and greets all the animals that live in the jungle. A problem emerges; the flamingo is missing, and the tiger needs help to find the lost flamingo. Using different concrete props such as toys, accessories, and books, the toddlers were invited to enter the imaginary world of the CPW where they would look for the lost flamingo. In doing so, toddlers’ interactions within the CPW were studied qualitatively and visually, which became the lenses for the study.

The Participants and Data Generation

Eight toddlers from one early childhood centre were followed during the implementation of the CPW. The centre is one of the participating centres of the larger Australia Research Council Programmatic study. The centre was in a middle-class suburb in southeast Melbourne, Australia. The families had mixed heritage backgrounds, ranging from British, European, Latin American, East, and South Asian. The data set of 4 focus toddlers aged 1.9–2.1 years is presented. The educator is Diploma qualified and has more than 10 years of experience. For data collection, one camera on a tripod captured the overall activities and another camera was handheld by the researcher to closely follow the focus toddlers. A total of thirteen hours of digital video observations were collected. Digital data collection was chosen as it captures, the toddlers’ interactions and narratives using props such as books, toys, and accessories which were available in the toddlers’ environment. The digital data also managed to capture additional dynamic aspects of toddlers’ play such as gestures, verbal/nonverbal communication, cues, and movements. Digital data collection allowed the researchers to continuously revisit and deepen the interpretation of the empirical data sets. Field notes, detailed logs, and research protocols were prepared after each visit. Ethics approval was granted from the Victorian Department of Education and Training and Monash University Human Ethics Committee. Voluntary and informed consent was provided by the parents for video-recording their children’s participation in the CPW and data for scholarly purposes. Parents and educators were encouraged to explain to the toddlers that photos and videos of them would be taken. The toddlers were asked before filming commenced. Educators’ voluntary and informed consent was also given. Pseudonyms have been used for all participants of the research. Data management complied with the Monash University data protection and privacy procedure, including the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic).

Analysis

The data analysis framework drew upon Hedegaard and Fleer’s (2008) dialectical interactive approach to studying children. Three iterative analysis steps were undertaken: (1) everyday interpretations, (2) situated interpretations, and (3) theoretical interpretations. The everyday interpretations occurred when data were digitally logged in raw form, and linked with the researchers’ initial observations and field notes. For situated interpretation, the whole data set was cut into video clips and common themes were identified, such as props and imaginary situations. For theoretical interpretations, video clips were digitally brought together to observe the emerging theoretical categories used to analyse the complete data for frequency, type, duration, and quality of imagining. Observations were made on the pairing of props and toddlers’ imagination as evident through the CPW, which drove to the final part of the theoretical analysis. The dialectical and wholistic essence of the three levels of interpretation conceptualised the toddlers’ gestures, actions, interactions, narratives, and engagement with the props, which influenced their engagement with the imaginary situation of the CPW.

Findings of the Study

We found that the props created unique motivating conditions for toddler play during the CPW. Indicative vignettes are presented below to illustrate the findings of study 1. props as transitional objects toward imaginary play, 2. The toddlers’ embodiment of the experience, and 3. Transition into a shared intellectual and abstract space.

Vignette 1: Props as a Transitional Object Toward Imaginary Play

In Vignette 1, Karen, the educator, begins to read the book ‘Follow that tiger’ to the toddlers. As Karen reads the story, she enters the imaginary situation by pretending to be a hero from the story, an animal in the jungle. Karen brings animal bodysuits and accessories such as heads, tails, and ears to the toddlers. She asks the toddlers which animal they want to be from the book. Zander, aged 1.10 years old, puts on the tiger head and bodysuit. Zandar roars as if being a tiger as he walks around the room. Karen takes out figurines representing the animals from the book and sets them up on a table. The toddlers start playing with the figurines. Picking up the figurines Karen talks to the toddlers about different external biological haracteristics of the animals (e.g., “Lachlan, aged 1.9 years old, is a big Zebra! Look Lachlan, the zebra has stripes. And you have stripes on your body [touching Lachlan’s zebra costume]. Lachlan is a zebra”). Lachlan touches and feels the animal suit and looks at the zebra strips as Karen talks to him. Zandar joins Karen and Lachlan, looking for a zebra in the story. They start talking about animal stripes and tails, picking up each figurine and comparing them to their bodysuits and the pictures in the storybook. Lachlan points at the pictures in the book and then points at his tail. Karen affirms Lachlan’s actions by saying, ‘Yes, you are right, that is a tail’.

In the meantime, Zandar picks up an animal figurine and says something that sounds like ‘tiger’. Karen nods at him and says, ‘You are a tiger’. Zandar comes up to the researcher and loudly says “roar” and continues touching the tiger head and costume and roaring.

In this vignette, Karen uses diverse props such as costumes and figurines to invite the toddlers to enter the imaginary situation of ‘Follow that tiger’. By putting on the animal suit, Zandar enters the imaginary situation and embodies the role of the tiger. Wearing the suit, he maintains his imaginary character and stays within the imaginary situation. This is seen through the way he continuously makes the “roaring” sound and uses that sound to communicate with others. He begins to act independently within the imaginary situation and explores the room as if a tiger. Karen validates Zandar’s imaginary character by saying he is a tiger. For Zandar the animal suit appears to act as a transitional object from reality to the imaginary situation of the CPW. At the same time, props took a different role in Lachlan’s experience. Lachlan appeared to engage with the imaginary characters from the story by playing with the animal figurines. Karen supported Lachlan in interrelating the two types of props, the figurines, and the costume, and invited him to enter the imaginary situation as if a zebra (e.g., Lachlan is a zebra). Although Lachlan did not appear to enter the imaginary situation himself at this stage, he seemed to use the figurines to connect with the imaginary story and make sense of the situation. For Lachlan, the figurines became a placeholder for imagining the animals from the book. What is also highlighted in this vignette is the role of the educator in creating the conditions for toddlers’ imagining using props. Karen oriented the toddlers towards the costumes, the accessories, and the figurines indicating that props act as an agency for imagination. By using the props, she consistently invited the toddlers to enter and experience the imaginary situation during their play.

Vignette 2: Emergence of Embodied Actions and Words

In Vignette 2, after Karen reads the storybook, there is a phone call. Karen informs the toddlers that the tiger has called asking for help to find a lost flamingo (e.g., Karen says, ‘the tiger needs our help, we must look for the lost flamingo.). Karen suggests that they quickly put on animal accessories such as tails and ears and go into the jungle. Karen puts on the bear’s ears and begins to walk like a bear.

Talya has put on the Zebra ears and is a Zebra following Karen. The bear says they should climb the tree to look for the flamingo (Karen suggests, ‘walk around the tree, walk around the tree can you see if the flamingo is there?’’). Talya nods and looks up at the imaginary tree that Karen is looking at. Zandar is wearing Zebra ears as he joins Talya in following Karen. Slowly, all the toddlers join, barking like zebras, roaring like tigers and walking like animals climbing the tree, taking big steps, and holding on to the branches. No flamingo is found on the tree. Then Karen suggests swimming across the water. Talya follows Karen crawling and swimming behind Karen. As they swim, they find some feathers, “Karen asks Talya, Zandar and the other toddlers, “Is this where the flamingo was? Is this the flamingo feather?” Talya, Zandar and the other toddlers look curiously at the pile of feathers on the floor. Karen gives the toddlers the feathers. Talya grabs some feathers, looks at Karen feeling and blowing the feathers and starts to do the same. Zandar looks at Karen, so he blows the feather too. All the toddlers begin to blow their feather.

In this vignette, Karen uses varied props such as animal accessories, and feathers to encourage the toddlers to enter and remain in the imaginary situation. By putting on the animal ears and tails, it is seen that Talya and Zandar have entered the imaginary situation building up the momentum for the toddlers to engage through embodied imitative actions and gestures of what the toddlers see and hear from Karen. It highlights the nature of the toddlers' experiences within the CPW, where the story is reproduced in their play through actions and gestures as a collective imaginary situation. An interesting observation can be made of Talya, who is attracted to the props' physical properties and their symbolism using actions and gestures. Karen’s use of props was significant to the toddlers’ learning to enter and engage with the imaginary jungle and the flamingo as an early form of developing their imagination. The props worked as an archetypal form for imagination, like the flamingo feather as the lost flamingo and the animal ears and tails as the animals from the jungle, which suggests that the toddlers were using the props as a placeholder of meaning for the story that had been read to them. Talya looked for the flamingo in the imaginary jungle by climbing the trees, swimming in the water, and then participating in discussions on the properties of the feather, signifying that the props were acting as placeholders and in the play became pivots for symbolling the respective animals. This could be seen through her imitative and embodied actions. The props created play conditions for Talya to engage with the imaginary situation of the story.

Vignette 3: Transition of Props from Concrete to Abstract

In vignette 3, after reading the book and putting on the animal accessories, Karen asks the toddlers to continue to look for the lost flamingo. Chloe and Talya are already looking for the flamingo in the jungle. While Talya puts on Zebra ears, Chloe refuses to put on any animal accessories and says she knows is a Zebra. They pretend to walk through the tall grass in the jungle (Chloe is saying, ‘Tallgrass, Tall grass’). Karen suggests to Chloe and Talya that they can now go into the water under the cave (Karen says, ‘Chloe are you going under, underneath the cave?’) Chloe immediately gets down on her knees and hands going under the table calling out to Talya to join her. Karen is also on her hands and knees and asks the toddlers to look for the flamingo in the water (Karen says, ‘let’s go look for Flamingo. Oh, here’s a big river, can we swim across the river?’) Chloe is pretending to swim saying, ‘swim swim swim under the river’. Karen mentions that she sees a big tree and points up as they are swimming. Chloe looks up from under the table and asks where it could be. Karen points up saying ‘let’s climb over the big rocks. Here we go, let’s keep climbing over the big rocks.’ Chloe immediately starts to pretend she is climbing by using big feet movements.

In this Vignette, the use of props in combination with verbal narratives has managed to bring the storybook to life. Karen has enticed Chloe to engage in an imaginary creative practice. Chloe connected within the imaginary space through gestures and bodily actions as she follows Karen and her verbal cues. Chloe was engaging more through words and gestures. Chloe found this compatible as it was based on actions, such as climbing up the tree, swimming under the water, and performing the actions that most closely and directly corresponded to real experiences. The toddlers’ ability to express themselves through gestures and words within the imagined space was apparent. The exchange between Chloe and Karen is characterised by words, and gestures representing ideas as they continue looking for the flamingo. For Chloe, words have become the new pivot that led to Chloe imagining the storybook. It can be observed that the development of imagination within the CPW represented a holistic, dynamic, and collective process that encouraged imaginative thinking in toddlers. When the toddler’s engagement is viewed from the wholeness approach, it identifies toddlers’ perspectives through their actions (and words), verbal/non-verbal language, and curiosity. Karen’s use of props and narratives brought out the imaginary situation of the story and the characters, which in turn meant the props and later their symbolic form in words, acted as pivots for action in their collective play.

Discussion

The above vignettes showed how the dynamic use of props created conditions for the development of toddlers’ imagination within the activity setting of the CPW. Three key points emerge from the analysis: (a) props created the conditions for the development of toddlers’ imagining, (b) the more complex toddler’s imagining became, fewer props were used, and (c) the toddlers achieved symbolic use of props in their play.

Props and Toddlers’ Imagining

First, imagination within the CPW was foregrounded when using props. The wearing of animal suits, ears, and tails acted as placeholders for imaginary animal roles, followed by the feather, which portrayed the flamingo. The extracts showcased a process that inspired the toddlers and educators to engage in joint play and shared experiences, creating conditions for toddlers’ engagement within the imaginary world. The concrete props in the room allowed the toddlers to create an imaginary situation that drives their actions, gestures, communication, and movements. The CPW allowed a powerful way to capture the critical interactions between the toddlers and the props in the form of embodied actions, verbal and non-verbal communication and movements. The dramatic form of the CPW is compatible with toddlers as it allows them to link between all props, dramatisation and play. In the vignette, the props within the imaginary space facilitate the composition, and improvisation of the imaginary play.

Complex Toddlers’ Imagining Required Less use of Concrete Props

Second, over time, less use of props was evidence, as we saw from the use of the full tiger suit (period 1), through to tails and ears (period 2), to finally just the use of a feather as symbolic of looking for the flamingo (period 3). This can be conceptualised as the props allowing the toddlers to initially engage with both their optical field and sense field (imagining climbing the rock, swimming through the water, and climbing the tree looking for the lost flamingo). Later, when toddlers and educators start exploring the CPW with the problem of looking for the flamingo, the dramatic form of their actions are expressed through the entire cycle of imagination with the most incredible clarity. Here the image that the imagination has created from real elements of reality from the story was embodied and realised again in reality through the props, albeit only as a contingent reality at that stage. The dramatic actions and gestures (with little words) of the toddlers was evidence as an embodiment of the imagined story with its characters. More than any other form of creation, drama is closely and directly related to play. Vygotsky (2004) suggests that the root of all creativity is associated with drama and play. The educator is within the imaginary space of the toddlers, where she is composing, improvising, and preparing the imaginary play. This is realised through the props, roles, and dramatization of parts of the storybook. The verbal creation through which Karen attempts to engage toddlers is a natural part of a complete and fascinating play while props provide the visual pretext to support toddler agency in the play. Toddlers’ engagement was seen through how the props gave them a way to agentically contribute to the play. The toddlers could use the props to signals to Karen and to each other the meaning and purpose of their play actions, and in the context of a common narrative of the CPW of the story, their embodied actions could be understood, mirrored, and expanded as a form of collective imaginary play – with less need for props over time.

Symbolic use of Concrete Props by Toddlers

Thirdly, the adult’s perspective in creating the conditions of the imaginary situation can be observed through Karen’s engagement, which is key to developing a robust imaginary play environment. In the vignettes, Karen uses the CPW to engage the toddlers in imaginary play. The CPW of the story fosterers and enhances the imaginary situation as an embodied play action. Through props, Karen encouraged the toddlers to engage and imagine ideas from the storybook such as the flamingo’s feather used to represent the lost flamingo. Giving new meaning to feathers is a cognitive leap for toddlers because they learn to be within an imaginary situation and simultaneously give new meanings to props in play.

From a wholeness approach, the toddlers’ perspective becomes evident in their overall engagement within the CPW. The intensive use of props acted as a cultural device to support toddler imagining. Props were inviting the toddlers to transition from the real world of the room to the imaginative world of the story. When toddlers wore animal ears and tails and held the feather, the transition and sustenance of the imaginary play came alive and elicited genuine interest in toddlers. In their play actions, an early form of a shared imaginary situation was emerging, and the toddlers appeared through their actions to imagine themselves to be animals, looking for the lost flamingo. The toddlers appeared motivated by the imaginary situation, suggesting that the CPW was meaningfully creating the conditions for toddler imaginary play in a collective symbolic system of social relations around a story.

Conclusions

This study sought to explore and understand how props supported the genesis of imagination in toddlerhood. Consistent with the study by Fleer (2018), Li (2020) Fragkiadaki et al., (2021), the research findings presented the development of collective imaging by toddlers. However, the study also revealed how props within the CPW created the conditions for the toddlers to engage with imaginary play. The study contributes to a better understanding of the role of props in the early childhood setting.

Further, similar to the empirical studies conducted since 1980 on infants and toddlers as discussed above, this research provided insights into how toddlers engaged with play with support from adults using concrete objects. The study found how props allowed the toddlers to collectively engage in exploring imaginary situations through actions, gestures, verbal/non-verbal communication. The study also shows how props have become the means by which toddlers transition from playing with objects to using objects as props for supporting imaginary play. The development process of imagination within the CPW has represented a holistic, dynamic, and collective process that encouraged imaginative thinking by toddlers. Knowing more about how toddlers become oriented to imaginary play can help educators in centres better support their development.

It can be noted that while props are physical and tangible, imagining is psychological. The latter was found to have a vital role in imagining in play for toddlers. The experiences afforded conditions for developing imagination (Fleer, 2018; Fragkiadaki et al., 2021) that position toddlers to efficiently deal with the social process of working with abstract symbols, content knowledge, and thinking. It has allowed relations between imagination and reality to foster when props are given new meaning (Vygotsky, 2004). Even though it is the props that toddlers are engaging with as highlighted by Fromberg (2002), Karpov (2005), and Garner and Bergen (2015), the study showcases how toddlers’ engagement in the imaginary situation (through the use of props) supports them to develop relational links by systematising their play explorations, and this shows evidence of the earliest forms of imagination in toddler play. The overall contribution of the study provides insights into the possibilities of play-based pedagogies for the development of imagination in toddlerhood.