CREATIVE IMAGINATION IN SCHOOL EDUCATION DURING THE FIRST CHILDHOOD: CONCEPTS, METHODOLOGIES AND TEACHER PRACTICES

ABSTRACT

The Historical-Cultural Perspective has defended the centrality of imagination for learning and child development. In this work, our objective was to understand the concepts, research methodologies, and teaching practices related to the processes of creative imagination in the context of early childhood education. To this end, a literature review about this topic was carried out between 2006 and 2021, in the Scielo and Scopus databases. We identified a scarce production about the topic in question, but advances regarding the importance of intentionally planned pedagogical actions to foster creative imagination in the school context of Early Childhood Education and the first year of Elementary School, given its implications for the learning and development process in early childhood, as well as the relevance of increasing the number of studies that consider children’s perception of their playful experiences in the interactive processes of daily school life.

Keywords:
creative imagination; school learning; early childhood

RESUMO

A Perspectiva Histórico-Cultural tem defendido a centralidade da imaginação para a aprendizagem e o desenvolvimento infantil. Neste trabalho nosso objetivo foi compreender os conceitos, as metodologias de pesquisa e práticas docentes relacionadas aos processos de imaginação criadora no contexto da escolarização infantil. Para tanto, realizou-se uma revisão da literatura envolvendo essa temática entre os anos de 2006-2021, nas bases de dados Scielo e Scopus. Identificamos uma produção escassa sobre a temática em questão, mas avanços quanto à importância de ações pedagógicas intencionalmente planejadas para o fomento da imaginação criadora no contexto escolar da Educação Infantil e primeiro ano do Ensino Fundamental, haja vista sua implicação para o processo de aprendizagem e desenvolvimento na primeira infância, bem como a relevância de ampliar o número de pesquisas que considerem a percepção das crianças sobre suas vivências lúdicas nos processos interacionais do cotidiano escolar.

Palavras-chave:
imaginação criadora; aprendizagem escolar; primeira infância

RESUMEN

La Perspectiva Histórico-Cultural ha defendido la centralidad de la imaginación para el aprendizaje y el desarrollo infantil. En este estudio nuestro objetivo fue comprender los conceptos, las metodologías de investigación y prácticas docentes relacionadas a los procesos de imaginación creadora en el contexto de la escolarización infantil. Para eso, se realizó una revisión de la literatura involucrando esa temática entre los años de 2006-2021, en las bases de datos Scielo y Scopus. Identificamos una producción escasa sobre la temática en cuestión, pero, avances con respecto a la importancia de acciones pedagógicas intencionalmente planeadas para el fomento de la imaginación creadora en el contexto escolar de la educación infantil y primer curso de la enseñanza básica, haya vista su implicación para el proceso de aprendizaje y desarrollo en la primera infancia, así como, la relevancia de ampliar el número de investigaciones que consideren la percepción de los niños sobre sus vivencias lúdicas en los procesos interaccionales del cotidiano escolar.

Palabras clave:
imaginación creadora; aprendizaje escolar; primera infancia

INTRODUCTION

The process of creative during the first childhood¹ has playtime as its driving force, which in turn promotes learning and consequently holistically produces an impact on child development. However, school still remains anchored in a classic heritage that connects the idea of imagination to a fantasy, spontaneous pastime for children that is disconnected from the learning process, that is, imagination and knowledge are presented as opposites in the pedagogical dynamics (Silva, 2012, Vygotsky, 2018).

The studies and discussions on imagination and creation stood out in the works of L. S. Vygotsky (1896-1934),who was a precursor of the cultural-historical perspective, in which the most important fundaments are: biological birth is not enough to make you human, and cultural development is paramount; human beings develop by means of social relations, and the environment is a source. The relation between humans and the environment is mediated by language and other instruments. This mediation leads to the formation of typical human psychism; human development is a complex, and dialectical process in which individuals not only absorb culture but also participate in its construction; children are historically situated beings who, at the same time, appropriate and create culture in the act of playing.

It is in this context that Vygotsky believes in the existence of an indissociable connection between imagination and knowledge because imagination is the basis of all creative life, a vital function that is necessary and omnipresent, which permeates personal, speculative and practical life; it is built by elements taken from reality. That is the reason why the richer and more diverse a previous experience is for an individual, the more material will be available for imagination. It is motivated by the inability to adapt, which leads to the emergence of necessities, challenges, aspirations and desires, and consequently, to the process of creation of something new by means of the combination and re-elaboration of the human brain. It is a characteristic of human nature that manifests itself since very early in childhood and can be observed when children play, especially make-believe, by means of which children play and create at the same time (Vygotsky, 2018).

By making criticisms to the epistemological principle, which conceives the imagination process as something apart from the cognitive dimension and irrelevant to educational planning, Vygotsky (2018) emphasizes that creative imagination is quite complex and depends on a series of factors, as it takes different forms in each period of childhood development. Oral creation, typical of the first childhood, becomes a partner of other forms of graphic and dramatic expression. In addition, at this moment of development, pedagogical actions must be organized based on what children think of the imagination and creation process.

Other perceptible mistakes made in school everyday life during the first childhood that were pointed out by Vygotsky are: first, the apriorist thought that children creative by themselves, and dispense with encouragement by intentional actions and with favorable conditions when it comes to the imagination process; second, defending school education practices that aim at making children more interested in creative activities for the development of artistic skills (Vygotsky, 2018).

Nowadays, there are several studies (Barbato, 2016; Cruz, 2011; Elkonin, 2012; Silva, 2012; Silva, Costa, & Abreu, 2015; Smolka, 2015), that tackle the theoretical and empirical issues related to the process of creative imagination and its relation with childhood development, re-visiting and re-examining, in the educational contemporaneous context, the studies and discussions on imagination and creation in Vygotsky’s thought.

In this perspective, Cruz (2011) reiterates the close interdependence between imagination and cognition in the process of knowledge elaboration, arguing that it does not restrict itself to cognitive processes. Rather, it connects to imaginative processes, with a highlight on the mediating role played by oral creation in this context, defining it as the means by which we classify, outline, represent, name, and signify reality and produce historically contextualized meanings, while emphasizing activities that involve symbolization (imitation, games, playing with paper), while gradually facilitating the origin of conceptual-logical thought.

Corroborating Vygotskian thought, Silva (2012) argues that imagination, unlike the ordinary way it is conceived, is not mere reverie or puerile thought. In fact, it is the basis for thought, creation, and knowledge in the first childhood.

In this context, Smolka (2015) reminds us that the 20^th century was characterized by the expansion and multiplication of studies focusing on the comprehension of the role played by imagination in childhood development, particularly, in 1980, with the translation and publication of Vygotsky’s works in the western world. There was then a re-dimensioning of the comprehension of child play with a change of perspective from an emphasis on the natural, spontaneous, and pleasurable character of the playtime activity towards research with a focus on the problematization of creative imagination in childhood learning and development.

Playtime plays the role of mobilizer for children and leads to different socialization conditions. To Vygotsky (2021), playtime creates what is conceptionally known as zone of proximal development, which induces children to behave in a more elaborated way, outgrowing their usual behavior. It is also a means for development of abstract thought, since it allows children to act independently from the immediate perceptual situation and operate in the field of significations. Thus, all these factors fully potentialize childhood development by fomenting the construction of concepts, language, autonomy, self-regulation, as well as relations with peers and adults.

In this perspective, “child play can be regarded as a guiding activity, that is, an activity that determines a child’s development” (Vygotsky, 2021, p. 236). Extending the Vygotskian proposition, Elkonin (2012) demonstrates the prevalence of a guiding activity for every moment of development. In the first year of life, it consists of direct emotional contact between the baby and people in its social surroundings. In the second year, object activity in which a child learns socially developed ways to interact with objects. Between the third and the sixth year of life, social role playing or make-believe. In order to do it, there is emphasis on the recommendation that ages cannot be approached in an inflexible way because they express childhood experiences in their cultural-historical complexity.

Regarding this theoretical re-dimensioning of playtime from the perspective of Vygotskian propositions, Silva et al. (2015) clarify that it served the purpose of contemplating the inter-relation among imagining, creating, and learning, and such contemplation influenced the conception of childhood in the 1990’s and produced an impact on public policies and teaching practices in child education.

Thus, nowadays the comprehension that playtime guides pedagogical actions aiming at educating children in the first childhood prevails (Child Education and the first year of Basic Education) because playing is an action that is essentially social and creative. It is the means by which children exercise their imagination (Barbato, 2016). Thus, some relative concerns in the field of research and application of these themes are based on the comprehension and historical perspective if the construction of the concept of creative imagination in the school context of the first childhood.

Concerning the incoherence that was perceived in the forms of conceiving, validating, planning and operationalizing actions, that focus on the development of creative imagination in children in school everyday life during the first childhood, it proves relevant to amplify this discussion and ask, from the conceptual and methodological point of view, how researchers in child education are investigating the process of imagination in the first childhood in the last 15 years. It is also relevant to ask how creative imagination, attached to playtime, constituted itself in the process of socialization and learning in the time and space of Child Education and/or in the first year of Basic Education in literature in the last 15 years?

In this sense, the central objective of this study is to understand the concepts, research methodologies and teacher practices related to the processes of imagination and creation involving playtime in the context of child education and/or of the first year of Basic Education in literature in the last 15 years. In order to do so, we have outlined the following specific objectives: identifying the concepts and methodologies applied to research works that approach the concepts of childhood imagination and creation in the school education context in literature in the last 15 years and assess the teaching practices that permeate the everyday life of child education and/or of the first year of life in Basic Education in the last 15 years.

METHODOLOGY

The present study consists of a qualitative research from the cultural-historical perspective, which prioritizes the critical and dialectical comprehension of the studied phenomenon, in view of the complexity of the human development process.

The method for choosing and the integrative review, which allows us to summarize the research works that are already included and realize inferences by means of an interesting theme. This type of research is conducive to the stimulation and development of critical sense and analytical capacity (Souza, Silva, & Carvalho, 2010).

Based on the contributions by Ramos and Bicalho (2021) and Souza et al. (2010), six steps were taken in the realization of this research according to the following description: first, the selection for the bases for searching for documents after the elaboration of the guiding question, considering the reasonings and theories already learned by the researcher; second, selection of the terms for searching for documents; third, definition of the parameters for search (temporality and theme); fourth, application of the parameters in the selection of documents; fifth, exploratory, selective, and interpretative reading of the documents and, finally, analysis of results with organization and recording of the documents for critical analysis of the included studies, discussion of the results, final considerations, and finally, writing of the integrative review. During the process of selection of the bases for searching for documents, the choice was Scielo. However, very few relevant documents were found, which led us to the subsequent inclusion of Scopus, leading to an amplification of the number and quality of the findings in a national as well as an international scope.

The terms selected for the search of documents were: imagination, creation and development. Regarding the definition of parameters for searching involving temporality and theme, researchers chose documents that were relevant to their objective and that were published between January 2006 and January 2021. Based on these initial definitions, researchers outlined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were: documents found in the Scielo and Scopus databases with open access, written in Portuguese, English and Spanish ad published between January 2006 and January 2021, involving the following knowledge areas: social sciences, arts and psychology, which emphasize research methodologies and teacher practice related to the processes of imagination, creation and playtime in the school context of Child Education and the first year of Basic Education.

In this context, the exclusion criteria were: documents that presented relevance to the research focus but were closed; articles that were written in Portuguese, English, And Spanish; articles that had not been published between January of 2006 and January of 2021; articles that did not include the following knowledge areas - Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Psychology; articles that did not emphasize research methodologies and teacher practice related to the process of imagination, creation, and playtime in the context of child school education and first year of Basic Education that emphasized creativity, that presented relevance for the research focus, and represented teacher practice out of the school context of regular education; that presented relevance for the research focus and included the practice of another professional who was not a teacher in the context of regular school education.

By applying the constructed parameter to the selection of the documents by means of the terms “imagination”, “creation” and “development”, we were surprised at verifying that, in view of a significant number of scientific works on childhood and education, defended in the period from January 2006 to January 2021, only two were in accordance with the population to be investigated (teachers in child education and of the first year of Basic Education), with the intervention (teacher action in the context of child education and first year of basic education, learning-teaching relation) and with the context (school; education stage - child education and the first year of basic education). Thus, it was necessary to include other coherent terms with the theoretical reasoning and objective of this research in order to amplify the possibilities for search and reach results that are more expressive of the documents to be included, being outlined along the process with nine more formulations, which, added to the first one, makes a total number of 10 formulations.

In this context, by changing one word, and mixing it with the ones that were previously defined, researchers used the same terms translated into the English and Spanish, it was possible to obtain a new result, which was a little more expressive, and sometimes, a little more comprehensive and significant.

By advancing into an exploratory, selective, and interpretative reading of the documents, researchers were able to realize the first screening, which consisted of the following actions: out of the total sum of 337 documents, it was possible to realize the reading of the abstracts of 110 articles that were found with open access, and emphasizing that at this moment, researchers excluded 207 articles because they were not found with open access and 88 fit into the previously described exclusion criteria. In addition to these, 20 documents could not be included because they were documents that had been repeated in previous searches, which evidences the relevance of the semantic structure of the respective formulations that were selected for this research. Thus, a total sum of 22 articles were included, according to the application of the 10 formulations in the following description: first, imaginação, criação, desenvolvimento (2 documents were obtained); second, imaginação, criação, criança, aprendizagem (1 document); third, imaginação, infância, educação (12 documents); fourth, imaginação, brincar, infância ou educação (2 documents); fifth, imaginación, juego, infancia o educación, (no document) sixth, imagination, play, childhood or education (1 document); seventh, imaginação, linguagem (2 documents); eight, creation, imagination, development (1 document); ninth, escola, primeira infância, imaginação (no document); tenth, imaginação, brincar, primeira infância, educação (1 document).

After this initial screening, researchers tried to advance to a second screening, using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria according to previous descriptions, however, based on the full, interpretative reading of the included documents. The 22 previously approved articles were translated and registered. Thus, out of 22 documents, 19 were selected in this stage.

After the final selection of the final selection of the articles, researchers did a categorization of the studies so that the empirical findings, concerning the obtained objectives and results, could be described, interpreted and analyzed. Finally, there was the presentation of a synthesis of the knowledge that was built by means of the aspects that this research focuses on.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

For the analysis of the empirical findings in the selected material, researchers chose to organize the content of the publications into five major aspects: name of the article, year of publication, country of origin of publication, type of study and objectives. Thus, such organization led to an understanding of the scenario of productions on the theme in question. Regarding the titles of the works, it is possible to observe a variability in the proposition of the themes, which evidences the complexity that is inherent to the study of imagination in the context of school education in the first childhood. Regarding the publication period, it was observed that, in the selected period (2006-2021), there was increasing interest by researchers in the themes of this study after 2011 (3 studies). The greatest concentration of research works is quite recent. It happened in 2018 (4 studies), and 2020 (4 studies). Concerning the country of origin, there is a prevalence of productions by Brazilian researchers (15 studies). The authors of the four remaining productions came from four different countries (Australia, USA, South Africa, and Taiwan).

Regarding the obtained types of studies, it became evident that there was an equivalence between empirical experiences (9 studies) and theoretical reflections (9 studies), and only one article was realized by means of the literature review method. By assessing the objectives of the selected studies, it was possible to observe an excessive number of publications that were theoretically based on the cultural-historical perspective (11 studies) with a highlight on the studies by Vygotsky on imagination, theater, and esthetic experiences in the first childhood. Right after that, researchers identified the contributions by Gaston Bachelard. He was a philosopher that, based on phenomenology, deeply explored the relation between corporeality and creative imagination (3 studies). Finally, it was possible to verify the contributions by Reggio Emilia’s pedagogical approach (2 studies). Mphahlele (2019) makes it clear that this approach is based on Italian experiences in Child Education that were realized in the Reggio Emilia region after the 2^nd World War, inspired by the work named “Cem Línguas das Crianças” (One Hundred Child Languages) by Malaguzzi, which was based on the theory of multiple intelligences by Gardner, whose theoretical presupposition is the conception that children in the first childhood have different types of minds and, therefore, are able to learn in different ways when they go through interactions and communications that go beyond verbal language.

It is understood that the observations above on the scenario of scientific productions related to the themes of this research, in the period (2006-2021), can be a strong indicator of the inter-disciplinary character of this study, as well as the relevance of the cultural-historical perspective for the comprehension construction of new knowledge, especially referring to the contribution by Vygotsky’s studies.

After the analysis of the empirical findings, considering the proportion of this research, the results were grouped up in three categories: used concepts, applied methodologies and most important findings. In this sense, the first category “used concepts” aims at answering the first question in this research with an emphasis on the conceptual dimension: “From the methodological and conceptual point of view, how are researchers of child development investigating the process of imagination in the first childhood in the last 15 years?”

Based on the contributions by Carbonieri, Eidt and Magalhães (2020), Girardello (2011), Marques (2018), Oliveira and Stoltz (2010), Richter and Berle (2015), Shih (2020) and Smith and Sperb (2007), authors who share the common objective to provoke reflections on the inclusion of game-like activities into children’s lives as a means to promote imagination, creation, learning and development, it is possible to verify the concept of imagination as a process that is typically human and produced by experience, which is the basis of all creative activity. Children are then provided with a space of freedom and the wings to fly towards possibilities, a social practice that is experienced by means of playtime. Thus, they disagree with the innatist vision of imagination as a gift and emphasize the need to readjust the importance of playful activities in studies and school contexts and studies for child education, involving imagination and creation as gates to learning and full development.

Amplifying the discussion, Fleer (2011), Fronckowiak (2011), Martineli and Almeida (2017), Mphahlele (2019), Nilsson, Ferholt and Lecusay (2018), Richter and Murillo (2020) and Schlindwein, Martins and Oliveira (2019), in addition to considering the intrinsic relations among imagination, creation, learning, and development, point at a new element that is interconnected to the process, that is, the body in movement. Thus, these authors break up with the dualistic vision that sets apart body and mind, sensible and objective, imagination and cognition. They also define imagination as sensible reason, process of construction of images in conscience by means of symbolic experiences, conceived by children as an experience that is felt by the body in movement by means to words or toys. In a nutshell, imagination is a creative exercise experienced by children in their playing bodies. Thus, they overcome the dichotomy that involves the integration of playing and learning because they do not regard playing as a mere resource for learning. Rather they see it as the most important guiding activity in this process; learning in the first childhood is a synonym for playing and exploration, and it is necessary to rescue creative imagination and exploration in educational practice.

From an even more critical perspective, Almeida, Fernandes and Borges (2020), Leite and Rocha (2018), Peres, Naves and Borges (2018), Sá, Siquara and Chicon (2015) and Saura (2014) define imagination as a symbolic function, the basis for all childhood creations. Thus, they explain that, in the everyday school life of Child Education, it is necessary to consider the children’s role of protagonists, emphasizing the importance of educational research works in which children are re-presented as subjects, because they are subjects in their playing and, therefore, in their own learning. Thus, they must provide the bases for reflections in researchers with this focus. Furthermore, they demonstrate the need for adults to become skillful to work with children without disregarding the children’s point of view, always based on the premise that listening does not restrict itself to hearing words. It also implies a consideration of childhood diversities and singularities from an inclusive perspective and making it possible to listen to extraverbal narratives, significations and resignifications. Thus, generally speaking, they break up with the adult-centered logic and with the centrality of verbal language as the means to comprehend knowledges in research works on childhood learning, appreciating different possibilities of child expression, which can be significant and symptomatic in children, making it possible for the ones who haven’t developed speech yet to be included as subjects in research works.

The second category, “applied methodologies” also aims at answering the first question in this research with emphasis on the methodological dimension; “From the conceptual and methodological point of view, how are researchers investigating the process of imagination in the first childhood in the last 15 years?”

The case study was used as method by Sá et al. (2014), in which the subject focused by the research was a five-year-old child with autism, during make-believe interactions in the playroom, in which the theoretical axis was the cultural-historical approach and some premises of action-research, with emphasis on participating observation.

The ethnography was the option of Saura (2014), method which presupposes constant interactions between researcher and collaborator in direct, prolonged contacts by means of participating observation. The participants in this study were 12 children at the ages of two, three, four, and five years. The children were classmates.

Based on the cultural-historical perspective, Leite and Rocha (2018) chose direct (by means of video recordings) and participating (by means of playful interactions with children - drawing, painting, collage, music, and dance, conversations etc.) observation in a classroom with 22 students at the ages of 4 and 5 years.

Based on cultural-historical culture, Peres et al. (2018) used observations and video recordings of storytelling episodes at a school library with subsequent micro-analysis of the episodes; 18 children aged between 4 and 5 years and one teacher of child education.

Ethnography was also the option of Nilsson et al. (2018), realized in three Swedish schools of child education, in which teacher practice is based on the Reggio Emilia approach; the interview method was used with open questions and systematic observations of the everyday life of a classroom.

The non-structured, audio-recorded interview, systematic observation, and document analysis, to the light of the Reggio Emilia pedagogical approach, were present in the methodological trajectories of Mphahlele (2019), whose target public was made up of 4 child education teachers, whose practice was anchored on this pedagogical approach.

Based on the cultural-historical perspective, Schlindwein et al. (2019) realized an analysis of the teaching experience by means of a project for teaching arts that proposed esthetic experiences with children in the first years of Basic Education, involving music, animation theater, literature, and playtime at school.

After the interview method with open questions, Shih (2020) developed a study with 30 teachers of esthetic education (a component of the curricular structure of child education in Taiwan).

From the cultural-historical perspective, Almeida et al. (2020) chose the micro-genetic analysis method, using free observation, field diary, and video recordings of spontaneous playtime situations with 26 students in a classroom of the first year of Basic Education.

As an answer to the first research question: “How did creative imagination, attached to playtime constitute the processes of socialization and of learning at the time and space of Child Education and/or of the first year of Basic Education in the last 15 years?”, results were grouped up into a third category, “major findings”, in which the emphasis was on how teacher practices regarded playtime and creative imagination in school everyday life.

In this context, we highlight four major educational trends among the authors: game-like character of the creating and learning process; imaginative, esthetic, and playful experiences in the school everyday life; unity between imagination and cognition; coexisting and co-creating relation between subject teachers and subject students.

The contributions by Fleer (2011), Girardello (2011), Marques (2018), Martineli and Almeida (2017), Richter (2015), Saura (2014), Schlindwein et al. (2019) and Smith and Sperb (2007) explained that the pedagogical practice aiming at the teaching of children during the first childhood must be thought-over and planned, based on programs that emphasize the playful character of the following inter-connected processes: imagination, creation, end learning; emphasizing that, at this stage of development, creation presents a character that is essentially game-based, it is not a technical occupation, which means that teacher practice must not have the objective to search for child prodigies, or the teaching of technical skills for the production of arts, or even associate the children’s contact with art to the teaching of predefined moral objectives, and it becomes necessary to readjust the role played by playtime in the studies and school contexts of childhood learning.

The immersion in imaginative experiences and ludic esthetics (theater, make-believe, narrative, tracking, moving, singing, modeling, constructing and deconstructing objects etc.) for teachers and children in the school environment of the first childhood were pointed as essential by Almeida et al. (2020), Fleer (2011), Fronckowiak (2011), Marques (2018), Martineli and Almeida (2017), Mphahlele (2019), Richter and Murillo (2020), Saura (2014), Schlindwein et al. (2019) and Shih (2020), because such experiences of playing bodies promote the act of imagining, which results in learning and esthetic, emotional, and cognitive development.

Important reflections were explained by Shih (2020), Fleer (2011), Girardello (2011), Nilsson et al. (2018), Oliveira and Stoltz (2010), Sá et al. (2015) and Saura (2014), with theoretical, practical, and empirical implications for educational programs for the first childhood, because they are ruled by the imagination-cognition unity, in a rupture with the dichotomized view of playing and learning. They clarify that teacher practice must put together different areas of knowledge in a non-dualistic way, that is, without separating reason from emotion, affection and intellect, art and science, while promoting ways for creation and imagination among children.

In this process, Almeida et al. (2020), Leite and Rocha (2018), Peres et al. (2018), Sá et al. (2014) and Saura (2014), emphasize the need to listen and really pay attention to children’s narratives, expressions, opinions, desires, motivations, and needs in order to help children become active and critical individuals in the learning process, making it possible for them to experience co-existence and co-creation in their everyday interactions with adults. In this perspective, pedagogical mediation (based on dynamic, flexible and planned actions with intentionality and criticism) leads to the expansion of creative imagination and child protagonism.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The obtained results showed that creative imagination is a typically human psychological function, which is constructed by means of experiences of individuals in the first childhood, and it guides learning by means of playing, and during this period plays a pivotal role in the children’s full development process.

It was possible to verify the relevance of the Cultural-Historical Perspective for the comprehension and construction of new knowledge, especially regarding the contributions by Vygotsky’s studies.

It was possible to observe the relevance of amplifying the number of research works that focus on the perception of children regarding their playtime experiences in the interactional processes in the school everyday life, which will benefit the amplification of perceptions as well as the applicability of such knowledge regarding the improvement of school education services that are provided to children during the first childhood.

Thus, it was possible to understand the importance of pedagogical actions that are deliberately planned in order to foment creative imagination in the school context of Child Education in the first year of Basic Education. Playing is the guiding activity or principal mobilizer of education for children until the age of 6 years. However, it is not known whether, after the first year of Basic Education, children still need playtime or ludic activities to promote learning and development

References

• Almeida, B. P., Fernandes, L. K., & Borges, F. T. (2020). De Espectadora a Criadora: imaginação, faz de conta e mídia televisiva no desenvolvimento infantil. Psicologia & sociedade, 32, 205-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-0310/2020v32205296
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-0310/2020v32205296
• Barbato, S. (2016). A criança no início da escolarização: brincadeira e fala como pontes para a aprendizagem. In S. Barbato & M. F. F. Cavaton (Eds.), Desenvolvimento humano e educação: contribuições para a educação infantil e o primeiro ano do ensino fundamental. (pp. 53-67). Edunit.
• Brasil. (2016). Lei nº 13.257, de 08 de março de 2016. Dispõe sobre as políticas públicas para a primeira infância Presidência da República. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/lei/l13257.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/lei/l13257.htm
• Carbonieri, J., Eidt, N. M., & Magalhães, C. (2020). A Transição da Educação Infantil para o Ensino Fundamental: a gestação da atividade de estudo. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 24, 1-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392020215280
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392020215280
• Cruz, M. N. (2011). Imaginação, linguagem e elaboração de conhecimento na perspectiva da psicologia histórico-cultural de Vigotski. In A. L. B Smolka & A. L. H. Nogueira (Eds.), Emoção, memória, imaginação: a constituição do desenvolvimento humano na história (pp. 85-103). Mercado de Letras.
• Elkonin, D. B. (2012). Enfrentando o problema dos estágios no desenvolvimento mental das crianças. Educar em Revista, (43), 149-172. https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/NWgzBfFPJ8zzfmKLXzM9twh/?format=pdf⟨=pt
  » https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/NWgzBfFPJ8zzfmKLXzM9twh/?format=pdf⟨=pt
• Fleer, M. (2011). Conceptual Play: foregrounding imagination and cognition during concept formation in early years education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(3), 224-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2011.12.3.224
  » https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2011.12.3.224
• Fronckowiak, A. (2011). Poesia e infância: o corpo em viva voz. Pro-Posições, 22(2), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-73072011000200008
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-73072011000200008
• Girardello, G. (2011). Imaginação: arte e ciência na infância. Pro-Posições, 22(2), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-73072011000200007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-73072011000200007
• Leite, A. R. I. P., & Rocha, M. S. P. M. L. (2018). Mediação Pedagógica e Imaginação na Educação Infantil. Childhood & philosophy, 14(29), 279-305. https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2018.27812
  » https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2018.27812
• Marques, P. N. (2018). O “jovem” Vygótski: inéditos sobre arte e o papel da criação artística no desenvolvimento infantil. Educação e Pesquisa, 44, pp. 183-267. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634201844183267
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634201844183267
• Martineli, T. A. P., & Almeida, E. M. (2017). Contribuições da concepção vigotskiana de arte para o ensino da cultura corporal. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 21(3), 523-531. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392017021311194
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392017021311194
• Mphahlele, R. S. S. (2019). Exploring the role of Malaguzzi’s ‘Hundred Languages of Children’ in early childhood education. Journal of Childhood Education 9(1), pp. 1-10. http://www.sajce.co.za
  » http://www.sajce.co.za
• Nilsson, M., Ferholt, B., & Lecusay, R. (2018). ‘The Playing-Exploring Child’: reconceptualizing the relationship between play and learning in Early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 19(3), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949117710800
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949117710800
• Oliveira, M. E., & Stoltz, T. (2010). Teatro na escola: considerações a partir de Vygotsky. Educar, (36), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-40602010000100007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-40602010000100007
• Peres, S. G., Naves, R. M., & Borges, F. T. (2018). Recursos Simbólicos e Imaginação no Contexto da Contação de Histórias. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 22(1), 151-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392018013877
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392018013877
• Ramos, W. M., & Bicalho, R. N. M. (2021). Trilhas de aprendizagem aplicadas no E-learning para a educação permanente dos profissionais de saúde. In F. L. Guizardi, E. B. Dutra& M. F. D. Passos (Eds.), Em Mar Aberto: Perspectivas e desafios para uso de tecnologias digitais na educação permanente da saúde (pp. 144-189). Rede Unida.
• Richter, S. R. S., & Berle, S. (2015). Pedagogia como Gesto Poético de Linguagem. Educação & Realidade, 40(4), 1027-1043. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623651542.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623651542
• Richter, S. R. S., & Murillo, M. V. (2020). Ação de Desenhar na Infância como Iniciação aos Segredos do Mundo. Childhood & philosophy, 16(36), 01 - 27. https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2020.48283
  » https://doi.org/10.12957/childphilo.2020.48283
• Sá, M. G. C. S., Siquara, Z. O., & Chicon, J. F. (2015). Representação simbólica e linguagem de uma criança com autismo no ato de brincar. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte, 37(4), 355-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbce.2015.08.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbce.2015.08.004
• Saura, S. C. (2014). O imaginário do lazer e do lúdico anunciado em práticas espontâneas do corpo brincante. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte, 28(1), 163-75. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-55092013005000015.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-55092013005000015
• Schlindwein, L. M., Martins, A. S., & Oliveira, R. D. (2019). Plunct Plact Zum: imaginação e criação artística na escola. Cadernos Cedes, 39(107), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1590/CC0101-32622019213394
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/CC0101-32622019213394
• Shih, Y. H. (2020). Investigating The Aesthetic Domain Of The “Early Childhood Education And Care Curriculum Framework” For Young Students In Taiwan. International Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2020.81.37.44.
  » https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2020.81.37.44
• Silva, D. N. H. (2012). Imaginação, criança e escola Summus.
• Silva, D. N. H., Costa, M. & Abreu, F. (2015). Imaginação no faz de conta: o corpo que brinca. In D. N. H. Silva & F. Abreu(Eds.), Vamos brincar de quê? Cuidado e educação no desenvolvimento infantil(pp. 111-132). Summus.
• Smith, V. H., & Sperb, T. M. (2007). A Construção Do Sujeito Narrador: pensamento discursivo na etapa personalista. Psicologia em Estudo, 12(3), 553-562. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-73722007000300012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-73722007000300012
• Smolka, A. L. B. (2015). Prefácio - Das artes do brincar: seu papel no desenvolvimento cultural da criança. In D. N. H. Silva & F. Abreu. (Eds.), Vamos brincar de quê? Cuidado e educação no desenvolvimento infantil (pp. 13-16). Summus.
• Souza, M. T., Silva, M. D. & Carvalho, R. (2010). Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer [Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? ]Einstein, 8(1), 102-106. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
• Vigotski, L. V. (2018). Imaginação e criação na infância (Z. Prestes & E. Tunes, Trad.). Expressão Popular. (Trabalho original publicado em 1930).
• Vigotski, L. V. (2021). A brincadeira e o seu papel no desenvolvimento psíquico da criança. In.: Psicologia, educação e desenvolvimento: Escritos de L. S. Vigotski (Z. Prestes & E. Tunes, Trad.). Expressão Popular. (Trabalho original publicado em 1933).

• 1
  We take law no. 13.257/2016 (Brazil, 2016) of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice to produce a concept of the first childhood as the period that comprehends the first 6 years or 72 months of a child’s life. In terms of schooling, it contemplates Child Education (0 to 5 years) and the first year of Basic Education (6 years).
• Data availability
  Research data are available upon request.

Edited by

• Section Editor:
  Maria Júlia Lemes

Data availability

Research data are available upon request.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 Oct 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  02 Aug 2022
• Accepted
  23 July 2024