Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

An update of the Early Years Learning Framework V2.0 emphasises the thoughtful, balanced and purposeful integration of digital technology in facilitating positive outcomes for children’s learning, development and wellbeing. In addition, educators are asked to support families with eSafety, yet it is unclear how educators are poised to respond to these changes. Within a post-positivist frame, 123 Australian early learning educators described their workplace digital provision, digital knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes through a national online survey. Findings show that educators were confident about their own personal digital use, however their attitudes varied towards the use of digital technologies with children. Although most felt confident in their knowledge and skills of how to use digital technologies with children, many educators did not plan for children’s digital learning and there was negligible difference in how often educators used digital technology across different aged rooms (birth to age 5 years).

Keywords

early childhood education and care digital pedagogies educational policy educators digital technology digital literacy

Introduction

Children live in a digitally connected world with most young children having digital experiences before the age of six years (The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2023). Early childhood educators have a critical role to play in supporting children’s right to be digitally literate and become responsible digital citizens using digital technology in socially and culturally appropriate ways as they grow (Johnston et al., 2018; OECD, 2023). The OECD use the term “early digital literacy” when describing children’s digital learning as it describes: the set of knowledge, skills and values that enable young children to confidently and autonomously play, learn, socialise, prepare for work and participate in civic action in digital environments in a way that is appropriate for their age, local language and local culture (OECD, 2023, p. 293).

There is global recognition and attention to the increasing importance of enhancing young children’s digital literacy and digital practices in early childhood curriculum documents. New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Sweden and Denmark now include specific mention of digital technology in their early childhood curriculum (Plumb & Kautz, 2015). For example, the Finnish Curriculum for ECEC includes multi-literacy and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) as one of six transversal competencies for children (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2025). In Australia, this global trend is mirrored in the updated EYLF V2.0 (AGDE, 2022) that described educators as:

• developing their own knowledge and skills with digital technologies and media in their curriculum use with children in ways that enhance children’s learning, development and wellbeing,

• using digital technology intentionally and complement children’s hands on and experiential ways of play and learning,

• updating their own knowledge of digital and cyber safety so they can support children and families with evidence-based knowledge in the development of safe, healthy and responsible digital practices, and

• providing learning opportunities that enable children to become digitally literate and safely access a broader range of digital and media resources adding to children’s multimodal play and encourage new ways of thinking (AGDE, 2022).

Despite this global focus on the development of children’s digital literacy it has been reported that early childhood educators across the world feel unprepared to integrate digital experiences in educational programs for young children. In addition to assisting families with digital decision-making regarding children’s safety and privacy when they are online (Barblett et al., 2021; Schriever et al., 2020). For many early childhood educators, there are described practices of using digital technology with children but less discussion about upholding a philosophical belief and using an early childhood digital pedagogy. Such a concept is necessary for integrated digital technology use in teaching and learning (Chatterjee et al., 2023).

Digital Pedagogies

Digital pedagogy is a term used to describe the digital integration in teaching and learning and has undergone an evolution of thinking over time. The concept of digital pedagogy first referred to using digital tools such as computers to transform teaching and learning experiences, but more recent thinking suggests that digital pedagogy involves a range of deliberate and strategic choices made by educators to successfully apply digital technology in their teaching and children’s learning (Li et al., 2024). While the literature is firm that young children should be participating in digital learning and play experiences (OECD, 2023), educators have a mediating role to play in making teaching decisions on the possibilities and limitations of integrating digital technology, and they are required to reflect upon when, how and why when they are using digital technology together with children (Undheim, 2022).

Very little is reported about how educators develop and use their early childhood digital pedagogy, however there are reports of educators using an array of digital pedagogical strategies such as digital storytelling (Rahiem, 2021) and STEM practices using digital devices and tools (Furman et al., 2019). In addition, Mantilla and Edwards (2019) describe three pedagogical measures of children’s interactions with digital technology: social interactions and knowledge construction, teaching and learning with and supported by digital technology, and digital media production. Li et al. (2024) suggest that the common traits in quality early childhood digital pedagogy are underexplored and describe the implementation of an early childhood digital pedagogy as a collaborative and intentional process that blends the roles of teachers, children, and technology to reach teaching and learning outcomes. Masoumi and Bourbour (2024) found that even ECEC educators who had a positive attitude to using digital technologies with children used teacher-centered approaches where the blending of roles was not found. It would seem there is scope for discussion and improvement in thinking and practices of Australian early childhood digital pedagogies, particularly in encouraging children to use digital technologies with greater autonomy (Wilson et al., 2023). To support children’s digital literacies and participation, it is critical that educators develop an early childhood digital pedagogy where digital technologies are intentionally planned to be used constructively (OECD, 2023).

Determinants of Educator Digital Uptake

Educators’ attitudes, confidence, practices and levels of support have been described as the largest determinants of children’s digital experiences in ECEC settings (Chaudron et al., 2018; Edwards, 2016). A range of educator attitudes to using digital technology in early learning settings are described in the literature with some confusion as to how using digital technologies fits with educator images of childhood and how digital technology is “anti-ethical to play” (Scott, 2021, p. 2). More positive educator attitudes suggest that digital technology can personalise learning (Sadik, 2008) or assist in quality improvement of early childhood programs and practices (Hatzigianni et al., 2023). However, through supported professional development, teachers’ negative beliefs about the use of digital technology with children was shown to be replaced with new ways of thinking (Vidal- Hall et al., 2020).

A lack of access to digital tools, devices and resources as well as a lack of appropriate training to use digital devices and how to integrate digital learning into play based programs are other determinants to digital uptake in early childhood education (Plumb & Kautz, 2015). Other determinants may be screen time guidelines, and in Australia children under two are recommended to have no screen time with no more than 1 hour for children aged two to five years (Australian Government, 2024). There is however no consensus agreed across the world (see Azevedo et al., 2025). Nevertheless, screen time guidelines do not capture the entirety of children’s digital experiences (Scott et al., 2023) and are limited in their scope when guiding educator practice.

Research Aim

The aim of this investigation was to describe the digital provision of Australian early childhood educators and explore their digital knowledge, skills, use, and attitudes to the utlisation of digital technologies in early learning settings. To do this, the following research questions were asked: What digital knowledge, skills, hardware, software, and tools do educators use in their workplaces? How do educators use digital technologies? What are their attitudes to using digital technologies in early learning settings?

Research Design

A post-positivist paradigm guided our research design, as we sought to describe the self-reported provision and frequency of use of digital technologies as well as educator’s attitudes and beliefs. In this way, an exploratory mixed methods survey acknowledged the complexity and subjectivity of participants responses so allowed for multiple answers in some items to try to gather the diversity of experiences. Through this paradigm, the researchers were aware that they are gathering data to describe objective factors (such as frequency of use) and subjective factors (such as educator beliefs).

Sample and Ethical Considerations

Early childhood educators were invited to participate through a convenience sampling process that utilised the research team’s contacts in four large national early learning providers. Through the providers, email invitations were sent to centre directors who were asked to pass onto educators as well as pass the email on to other early learning centres with whom they may have contact. The invitation email included an information letter and a survey link which was used through snowball sampling to recruit participants. Ethics was granted by the University ethics committee (2022-03503) with participants asked to read the information letter and then consent by clicking an “I agree” button prior to completing the survey.

Instrument

The survey instrument was collaboratively developed by the authors and administered online through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2005). It comprised 21 questions which required either multiple choice or Likert Scale responses (1-5) with some questions allowing a written response. Likert responses investigated the following parameters: frequency (ranging from every day to never); knowledge (ranging from extremely knowledgeable to not knowledgeable at all); confidence (ranging from extremely confident to not confident at all); skills (ranging from extremely adequate to extremely inadequate); and degree of agreement (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree). The survey questions focused on educator’s demographics, digital knowledge, digital skills, the hardware, software, and tools that educators used across their day and in their work with children aged between birth and five years. Questions also probed educator beliefs and attitudes to children’s use of digital technologies in early learning settings. The survey instrument was piloted with five practising educators known to the authors then refined for question clarity before implementation.

Data Analysis

The survey data were analysed using SPSS v29 (IBM, 2022) and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, 2024) using descriptive and inferential methods to identify frequencies of variables and conduct cross analyses to investigate educator and child digital environments, practices, experiences, attitudes and perceived digital competencies. Written responses to questions were inductively analysed for common themes and added nuanced description to the statistical data. Participants who completed less than 75% of the survey did not have their data included.

Results

The survey received 208 responses, with 85 responses removed before the analysis for participants who did not complete 75%. Four key findings were identified from the data relating to educator demographics, digital environments, educator digital practices, and educator digital knowledge and attitudes.

Educator Demographics

Of the 123 participants, numbers were distributed across the age ranges with most being over 40 years of age and only one (0.4%) respondent aged between 18 and 24 years, and eighteen (14.6%) who were 54+ years (see Table 1). Four respondents (3.25%) indicated that they were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin, and 12 (9.76%) indicated that English was not their first language. The majority of respondents (n = 114; 92.7%) had a Diploma or higher qualification, with many (n = 78; 63.4%) holding a Bachelor’s degree or higher.

Table 1.

Age of Educators

Age in years	Number and percentage
54+	18 (14.6%)
45-54	49 (39.9%)
35-44	31 (25.2%)
25-34	24 (19.5%)
18-24	1 (0.4%)

Multiple responses were permitted for the question regarding how long educators had worked with children (see Table 2). Thirty-eight educators (30.9%) had been working with children from birth to five years for less than five years, 28 (22.8%) had been working with them for five to nine years, and 57 (46.3%) had been working with children from birth to five years for more than 10 years.

Table 2.

Years Working With Children

Years working with children birth to five	Number and percentage
Less than 5 years	38 (30.9%)
5 to 9 years	28 (22.8%)
More than 10 years	57 (46.3%)

Educators were also asked the age of the children with whom they worked and were able to give more than one response (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Numbers and Percentages of Educators and the Age of Children with Whom They Work

Numbers and percentages of educators	Age children with whom they work
64 (52%)	Four to five years
54 (43.9%)	Three to four years
30 (24.4%)	Thirteen to thirty-six months
29 (23.6%)	Birth to twelve months

Digital Environments

Participants were asked firstly what devices were used in the workplace (see Figure 1) and then what was used in the room in which they worked (123 respondents replied to each question). Results indicated a wide variation in digital provision across centres, with nearly a quarter of educators (n = 27; 21.9%) having at least five different types of digital devices and one educator indicating they had up to ten different types of digital devices in their workplace. However, two educators (1.6%) indicated having only one type of device and that was a digital camera.

Figure 1.

Devices Present and Used in Early Learning Settings

The most common devices used were tablets (n = 109; 88.6% in the workplace; n = 99, 80.5% in the room); followed by smartphones (n = 100; 81.3% in the workplace and n = 63, 52.2% in the room), laptops (n = 99; 80.5% in the workplace and n = 58, 44.7% in the room), and desktop computers (n = 91; 74% in the work place and n = 29, 23.6% in the room). Also commonly present were televisions (n = 43; 34.9% in the workplace and n = 29, 23.6% in the room), digital cameras (n = 39; 31.7% in the workplace and n = 26, 21.1% in the room), and wearable technologies such as for example Fitbits (n = 51; 41.4% in the workplace and n = 25, 20.3% in the room). The least likely digital technologies to be present were smart speakers (n = 17; 13.8% in the workplace and n = 7, 5.7% in the room) and digital robots (n = 9; 7.3% in the workplace and n = 4, 3.2% in the room). Of the respondents just under a quarter (n = 29) of the 123 participants (23.6%) work with children from birth to 12 months and nearly a quarter (n = 30; 24.4%) with children aged 13 to 36 months. In these age groups, six of the 29 educators (20%) responded to using a television in their work with infants, and three (10%) used an electronic whiteboard. In the age group including children under two years of age, nearly one third of educators (n = 9 of 30; 30 %) used televisions and three (10%) used electronic whiteboards.

Educator Digital Practices

Educators were asked to choose from a list of situations where they used digital technologies (see Figure 2). They were not asked which devices were used for what specified purpose. Educators indicated they used devices most often for research purposes (n = 100; 81.3%) but also indicated that devices were used to support children’s learning (n = 47; 38.2%). In describing practices across the day educators described using digital devices in their free time such as during a break time (n = 32; 26.0%).

Figure 2.

Situations in which Digital Technologies are Used by Educators

When educators were asked how frequently they used digital devices in a typical week for different specified purposes, participants indicated they most frequently used digital devices daily to document learning (n = 80; 65%), take photos (n = 76; 61.8%) and communicate with families (n = 64; 52%). Figure 3 highlights that digital technologies were rarely, if ever used for streaming movies or social networking, but were occasionally used for games or entertainment where 12 respondents (9.75%) used them every day, and 36 respondents (29.2%) used them between 1-3 days a week for this purpose. Some educators who responded in written form described using devices with children to access: Minecraft, drawing apps, games such as bingo, and health and fitness videos. Written responses also described using digital technology for sign in and out procedures, commercial planning platforms, data storage and emails.

Figure 3.

Educator Weekly Digital Technology Purposes

Educators were also asked about their digital practices with children and planning for digital experiences. Figure 4 shows just over half of the educators (n = 65; 52.8%) indicated they used digital devices with children and 48 (39%) describing digital teaching / learning experiences in their planning.

Figure 4.

Educator Digital Practices with Children

When asked about how often they use digital devices in a week themselves with colleagues and with children (Figure 5), the results showed that while 92 (74.4%) educators used digital technologies daily, only 24 (19.5%) use digital technologies with children daily and 15 (12.2%) indicated that they never used digital technologies with children. Educators’ who use digital technologies with children two to three days per week was 45 (36.5%).

Figure 5.

Educator Weekly Digital Practices

Examination of the ages of children with whom educators worked revealed educators’ digital practices (Figure 6) were mostly consistent across all age groups i.e. ‘infants’ (six weeks- 15 months), ‘toddlers’ (15 months-36 months), ‘pre-kindy’ (three to four years) or ‘kindy’ (four-five years).

Figure 6.

Educator Weekly Digital Practices in Different Aged Learning Spaces

Figure 6 reveals that educators use digital technologies for their own purposes, and also with children on most days. Moreover, this figure shows that educator’s digital practices with children follow similar patterns regardless of the ages of children they work with, where there are some children of every age (under 20% and decreasing with age) who were given access to digital technologies every day.

These results create a somewhat contradictory picture of educator digital practices with children. Educators reported using digital technologies for their own work purposes daily, and over half (52.8%) stated that they used digital technologies with children. However, analysis of educators’ weekly digital technology use with children revealed this only occurred on some days. Additionally, there appears to be little difference between how digital technologies were used with children in different learning spaces, regardless of the age of children.

Educators’ Digital Knowledge and Attitudes

Educators were asked to rate their own knowledge about using digital technologies in their work with children and families (Figure 7). About half (n = 63; 51.2%) considered themselves to be very knowledgeable or extremely knowledgeable using digital technologies with children and families and 67 (54.5%) felt very knowledgeable or extremely knowledgeable using digital technologies in their leisure time.

Figure 7.

Educator’s Digital Knowledge

When asked to rate their own abilities related to teaching children digital literacy skills where multiple responses were permitted, of the 109 respondents who answered this question, 52 (47.7%) to 75 (68.8%) educators felt extremely adequate in teaching a variety of digital skills as shown in Figure 8. Educators felt the most adequate teaching digital literacy skills such as operating a digital device, using simple digital technology terms, creating simple information for a purpose and identifying digital icons and symbols. Results showed educators felt most inadequate teaching children how to design, draw, edit, reflect and create, along with researching and recording findings.

Figure 8.

Educator Digital Literacy Teaching Skills

Regarding educator’s knowledge and attitudes towards the use of digital technologies with children, most respondents (n = 83; 79.8%) agreed or somewhat agreed they knew how to enhance children’s learning using digital technologies, whereas approximately one quarter (n = 28; 26.9%) neither agreed nor disagreed that giving children access to digital devices was a priority. However, only 15 (14.4%) strongly agreed that giving children access to digital devices was a priority whereas 22 (21.1%) strongly disagreed (Figure 9). When asked about the use of digital guidelines, a little less than half of the 109 educators who responded (n = 48; 46.1%) strongly agreed they used digital policy guidelines when considering children’s use of social media, applications and games, while 45 (43.2%) strongly agreed they knew where to get help regarding online safety issues.

Figure 9.

Educator Knowledge and Attitudes to Digital Technologies

When asked about their confidence in using digital technologies (Figure 10) most respondents (n = 87; 70.7%) felt very confident or extremely confident in using digital technologies in their work-related tasks. However, just over half (n = 67; 54.5%) felt very confident or extremely confident about using digital technologies with children in their care. It was evident that educators were mostly very confident to extremely confident to document children’s learning using digital technologies but not as confident using them with children in their care.

Figure 10.

Educator Digital Confidence

Discussion

Educator Practices: Contradictions and Dilemmas

The provision of digital technology in Australian early learning settings is not uniform, and at worst haphazard. While most educators had access to at least one device, many had three to five devices, and some decided to use no digital technologies with children. The provision of digital technology determines educators’ ability to implement digital learning with children, and a lack of provision leads to a reduced ability for children to develop digital literacy skills and participate in digital communities (Drysdale & Goode, 2024).

Educators in this study used mainly tablets, computers (mainly laptops) and digital phones. The use of digital phones in digital pedagogy with children is uncertain however the findings showed that educators access them in break times, for communication, connection to others and finding out information. The use of mobile digital tools is particularly popular and growing in use because of their portability, flexible design and manageability for young children (Nikolopoulou, 2021). Most digital devices in this study, while portable and flexible in design, were being used by adults in the main and not by children with less than half of the educators responding that they used digital technologies with children at some time. Interestingly, the use of digital technologies with children as reported by educators was not tangibly different across age groups. This raises questions about educator knowledge of the integration of digital technologies in children’s learning as they grow and what is appropriate for children to learn at certain points in their childhood about how to operate safely in digital communities.

An interesting finding was that the three devices reported as used most, all contain screens, yet current guidelines recommended that children under the age of two years should not be using or exposed to screens (Australian Government, 2024). This study showed that in a small number of settings, televisions and electronic white boards are being used with children under the age of two. This may illustrate some confusion about relying on policies and guidelines about the use of digital technologies with young children due to the great variation in advice often given in guidelines (Chaudron et al., 2018; Straker et al., 2018).

Smartphones were the second most used digital device reported but it is unclear if and how these devices may aide educator’s digital pedagogy. The use of smartphones has been under scrutiny in early childhood settings and just after these findings were gathered and analysed, the regulatory body, the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA] issued strong recommendations about using personal phones. They have recommended that only service issued devices be used in rooms, and personal devices can only be carried or used in limited circumstances and strict controls be in place for taking, using and storing children’s digital images (AGDE, n.d.). Therefore, the use of smartphones in educator’s pedagogy is an avenue to be explored more deeply.

Communicating with families, taking photos and documenting children’s learning were the main uses of digital devices and this appears to be a common finding in the early childhood education literature (e.g., Stratigos & Fenech, 2021). However, our findings reveal that educators are the main users of digital technology and while there are reports of using digital technologies with children, just over 60% of educators did not plan for children’s digital learning. Not planning for children’s digital learning is a dilemma. Planning for digital learning is important, so it does not become an arbitrary event but is carefully considered to assist all children to develop their digital literacy as required in the Early Years Learning Framework V2.0 (AGDE, 2022) and as an acknowledged right of all children (UNCRC, 1989).

Educators’ Confidence, Knowledge and Skill with Digital Technology

This study found that most educators were confident in their own use of digital technologies (see Figure 10), and this may influence their reported confidence in integrating digital technologies in educational programs for children. Lähdesmäki et al. (2023) found that educators’ perspectives on the use of digital technologies with children are influenced by their own positive or negative digital experiences. Many educators indicated they felt more confident in using digital technologies for non-teaching tasks in their work, or for their own leisure than when using digital devices with the children and families. Interestingly, we found that while educators felt skilled with teaching the commands on devices, they reported themselves as less skilled in teaching children how to design, draw, edit, reflect and create. This would be in line with previous research that found children are often viewed as consumers of digital technologies, however, contemporary research in early childhood has strongly positioned children as creators and producers using digital technology (Fleer, 2020; Hatzigianni et al., 2020). The multimodality of children’s learning and play and using digital technologies and media to represent their ideas and thinking are key ideas in Outcome Five of the EYLF V2.0 (AGDE, 2022) but this study suggests that educators appear unprepared to implement this.

Educators in this study were concerned about the safety of children in digital spaces and reported monitoring children online. Many felt they had the skills needed to ensure the safety of children online, by using application safety features, age restrictions and guidelines, yet some reported not knowing where to get current eSafety information. This is an issue as Livingstone et al. (2016) report that young children are the largest expanding group of internet users in the world. Educators in this study also described monitoring children when on-line and such intensive supervision may stop educators using digital technology with children because of the number of children with which an educator is required to supervise (ACECQA, 2025). This would be in line with Edwards’ (2021) findings that describe cyber safety as under researched in early childhood and not adequately offered in practice.

Developing and Using an Early Childhood Digital Pedagogy

The findings of this study pose questions around the notion of educators developing an early childhood digital pedagogy rather than continuing with a more ad hoc array of digital practices. The digital experiences that children encountered were not, in many cases, planned or documented. Developing a digital pedagogy relies on a sequence of strategic choices by educators to effectively integrate digital technology into their teaching practices (Lähdesmäki et al., 2023). Thus, more professional learning may be required in this area for practising educators and adding digital content to tertiary education courses for pre-service educators.

In addition, it is difficult to build or develop an early childhood digital pedagogy when philosophical beliefs hinder digital technology use. Educators’ attitudes in this study illustrated that for over half (n = 70; 65.2%), using digital technology with children was not a priority. This finding complements other studies that have shown this attitude reflects a possible clash with philosophical beliefs, as it has been previously reported that educators believe using digital technologies with children is the antithesis to play based pedagogy (Palaiologou, 2016; Schriever et al., 2020). Contrary to this, Li et al. (2024) recently suggested that play based pedagogy is the most frequently used type of digital pedagogy and that digital and multi-modal play can no longer be separated from traditional forms of play. In addition, Fleer et al. (2022) suggested more contemporary concepts of digital and multi-modal play developed with practitioners may support them to provide children with appropriate, safe, and meaningful digital learning opportunities with, such concepts described in the updated EYLF V.2.0 (AGDE, 2022). Li et al. (2024) also identified project-based or problem-based digital pedagogy and educators in this study described using digital technology to look up information. However, educators in this study did not report using apps with children or assisting children to apply problem solving in educational digital games.

There is no doubt that the role of the educator is crucial in teaching and facilitating children’s learning with digital technologies (Marsh et al., 2020; Segal Drori & Shabat, 2021). The newer description of digital pedagogy blends the roles of educator, child and technologies (Li et al., 2024). Such blending of roles in the use of digital devices was not shown in this study, as educators directed and used the digital devices mainly for documenting learning stories, taking photos, and sharing this with families. In addition, this study found that digital technological experiences with children are mostly unplanned and usually not documented. Therefore, further research and discussion of the development and use of educators’ digital pedagogy is warranted, rather than the practice of using an array of digital strategies and devices in children’s learning. Undheim (2022) suggests that situated professional learning which allows educators to co-create digital pedagogies with children incorporating critical reflection on their practices is helpful in enabling them to transform their attitudes and assumptions about digital learning.

Limitations

A small sample of 123 surveys were analysed and participants self selected to complete questions. This means the findings cannot be generalized and only gives a description of digital provision and practices of a small portion of educators across Australia. Self-reporting surveys have limitations as educators may perceive that some answers may be more socially acceptable than others or they do not give accurate accounts in their reports. However, the researchers tried to negate this by adding written qualitative answers to complement the quantitative data.

Conclusion

This study set out to describe the current digital landscape for Australian educators in early learning settings. In exploring digital provision and educator’s practices, attitudes, and confidence in incorporating digital technologies in their work with children and families their readiness to implement digital teaching and learning and supporting families with eSafety as described in the EYLF V2.0 (AGDE, 2022) appears uncertain. Educator’s digital practices were mixed with a vast array of mobile digital devices commonly used. Most educators responded they have the skills to use digital technology for their own personal use and with assisting children. However, how digital technology was used, and when, showed that many educators mainly used the named devices for documenting children’s learning and communicating with families. Anomalies were shown in reported digital technology use in children’s learning and a lack of planning for digital experiences was demonstrated. In addition, there were no substantial differences in digital use across age groups.

This study highlights the significant gap between educator digital provision, practices and the requirements of policy documents such as the EYLF V2.0 (AGDE, 2022). Further research is required to embed an early childhood digital pedagogy that is intentional, well planned, documented and critically reflected upon, to strengthen educator’s digital practices with children and families and to inform professional learning. In this way, educator’s digital knowledge and skills, children and educator’s digital learning, and eSafety support for children and families, as described in the EYLF V2.0 can be realised.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Lennie Barblett

Maria Enriquez Watt

Patricia R. Collins

Fiona Boylan

Pauline Roberts

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was in part supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child through Project number CE200100022.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA] . (2025). Guide to the national quality framework: Healthy lifestyle. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/national-quality-framework/guide-nqf/section-3-national-quality-standard-and-assessment-and-rating/quality-area-2-childrens-health-and-safety/standard-21-health/element-213-healthy-lifestyle

Australian Government . (2024). Too much time on screens? Screen time effects and guidelines for children and young people. Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/short-articles/too-much-time-screens#

Australian Government Department of Education [ADGE] . (n.d.). New guidance on using electronic devices in early childhood settings 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2025, from. https://www.education.gov.au/newsroom/articles/new-guidance-using-electronic-devices-early-childhood-settings#

Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE] . (2022). Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf

Azevedo

L. B.

Downes

Eastburn

Covell

Bissell

(2025). Early years practitioners’ and public health consultants’ perspectives on the use of interactive electronic devices in young children: A qualitative study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 51(1), e70022. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.70022

Barblett

Cartmel

Hadley

Harrison

Irvine

Bobongie-Harris

Lavina

Barblett

Cartmel

Bobongie-Harris

(2021). National Quality Framework Approved Learning Frameworks Update. August, 1–66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355369004_National_Quality_Framework_Approved_Learning_Frameworks_Update_Literature_Review

Chatterjee

Bandyopadhyay

Chakraborty

Dutta

(2023). Digital education: The basics with slant to digital pedagogy-An overview. In Choudhury

Biswas

Chakraborti

(Eds.), Digital learning based education: Transcending physical barriers (pp. 63–80). Springer.

Chaudron

Gioia

R. D

Gemo

(2018). Children 0-8 and digital technology. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2788/00749

Drysdale

Goode

(2024). The digital divide: Insights into an uneven playing field. In Kafa

Eteokleous

(Eds.), The power of technology in school leadership during COVID-19: Insights from the field (26, pp. 121–134). Springer.

10.

Edwards

(2016). New concepts of play and the problem of technology, digital media and popular culture integration with play-based learning in early childhood education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(4), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1108929

11.

Edwards

(2021). Cyber-safety and COVID-19 in the early years: A research agenda. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 19(3), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X211014908

12.

Finnish National Agency for Education . (2025). National core curriculum for ECEC in a nutshell. https://www.oph.fi/en/education-and-qualifications/national-core-curriculum-ecec-nutshell

13.

Fleer

(2020). Examining the psychological content of digital play through Hedegaard’s model of child development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 26, 1–9. (open in a new window). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.04.006

14.

Fleer

Rai

Fragkiadaki

(2022). The dialectical relation of real and digital conceptual playworlds in Family day care. International Journal of Early Years Education, 30/3(3), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2022.2041406

15.

Furman

De Angelis

Dominguez Prost

Taylor

(2019). Tablets as an educational tool for enhancing preschool science. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1439368

16.

Hatzigianni

Stephenson

Harrison

L. J.

Waniganayake

Barblett

Hadley

Andrews

Davis

Irvine

(2023). The role of digital technologies in supporting quality improvement in Australian early childhood education and care settings. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 17(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00107-6

17.

Hatzigianni

Stevenson

Bower

Falloon

Forbes

(2020). Children’s views on making and designing. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.173574

18.

IBM . (2022). Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) (iOS). IBM.

19.

Johnston

Highfield

Hadley

(2018). Supporting young children as digital citizens: The importance of shared understandings of technology to support integration in play-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 896–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12664

20.

Lähdesmäki

Maunumäki

Nurmi

(2023). Play is the base! ECEC leaders’ views on the development of digital pedagogy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(8), 1897–1910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01530-7

21.

Luo

(2024). Early childhood digital pedagogy: A scoping review of its practices, profiles, and predictors. Early Childhood Education Journal, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01804-8

22.

Livingstone

Carr

Byrne

(2016). One in three: Internet governance and children’s rights Innocenti Discussion Paper No.2016-01: UNICEF Office of Research. https://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/handle/123456789/4686

23.

Mantilla

Edwards

(2019). Digital technology use by and with young children: A systematic review for the statement on young children and digital technologies. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119832744

24.

Marsh

Murris

Ng’ambi

Parry

Scott

Thomsen

B. S.

Bishop

Bannister

Dixon

Giorza

Peers

Titus

Da Silva

Doyle

Driscoll

Hall

Hetherington

Krönke

Margary

Woodgate

(2020). Children, technology and play: Key findings of a large-scale research report (Issue June). The LEGO Foundation.

25.

Masoumi

Bourbour

(2024). Framing adequate digital competence in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(15), 20613–20631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12646-7

26.

Microsoft . (2024). Microsoft Excel (iOS). Microsoft.

27.

Nikolopoulou

(2021). Mobile devices in early childhood education: Teachers’ views on benefits and barriers. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3279–3292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10400-3

28.

Organisation for Economic Development . (2023). Empowering young children in the digital age: Starting strong. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en

29.

Palaiologou

(2016). Teachers’ dispositions towards the role of digital devices in play-based pedagogy in early childhood education. Early Years, 36(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1174816

30.

Plumb

Kautz

(2015). Barriers to the integration of information technology within early childhood education and care organisations: A review of the literature. In ACIS 2015 Proceedings - 26th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2013, 1–14. https://ro.uow.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/Barriers_to_the_integration_of_information_technology_within_early_childhood_education_and_care_organisations_A_review_of_the_literature/27702726?file=50446044

31.

Qualtrics . (2005). Qualtrics (June 2023). https://www.qualtrics.com

32.

Rahiem

M. D. H.

(2021). Storytelling in early childhood education: Time to go digital. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00081-x

33.

Sadik

(2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8

34.

Schriever

Simon

Donnison

(2020). Guardians of play: Early childhood teachers’ perceptions and actions to protect children’s play from digital technologies. International Journal of Early Years Education, 28(4), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1850431

35.

Scott

(2021). Digital technology and play in early childhood. In Encyclopaedia on early childhood development (pp. 1–7). https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/pdf/expert/technology-early-childhood-education/according-experts/digital-technology-and-play-early-childhood%0Ahttps://www.child-encyclopedia.com/technology-early-childhood-education/according-experts/digital-technology

36.

Scott

Marsh

Murris

Ng’ambi

Thomsen

B. S.

Bannister

Bishop

Dixon

Giorza

Hetherington

Lawrence

Nutbrown

Parry

Peers

Scholey

(2023). An ecological perspective on children’s play with digital technologies in South Africa and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Play, 12(3), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2023.2235466

37.

Segal-Drori

Shabat

A. B.

(2021). Preschoolers’ views on integration of digital technologies. Journal of Childhood, Education and Society, 2(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.20212172

38.

Straker

Zabatiero

Danby

Thorpe

Edwards

(2018). Conflicting guidelines on young children’s screen time and use of digital technology create policy and practice dilemmas. The Journal of Pediatrics, 202, 300–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.07.019

39.

Stratigos

Fenech

(2021). Early childhood education and care in the app generation: Digital documentation, assessment for learning and parent communication. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120979062

40.

Undheim

(2022). Children and teachers engaging together with digital technology in early childhood education and care institutions: A literature review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(3), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1971730

41.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Treaty no. 27531. United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, pp. 3-178.

42.

Vidal-Hall

Flewitt

Wyse

(2020). Early childhood practitioner beliefs about digital media: Integrating technology into a child-centred classroom environment. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735727

43.

Wilson

Murcia

Cross

Lowe

(2023). Digital technologies and the early childhood sector: Are we fostering digital capabilities and agency in young children? The Australian Educational Researcher, 51(4), 1425–1443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00647-3

Digital Provision,Educators’ Attitudes and Use in Early Learning Settings: Ready to Implement the EYLF V2.0?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Digital Pedagogies

Determinants of Educator Digital Uptake

Research Aim

Research Design

Sample and Ethical Considerations

Instrument

Data Analysis

Results

Educator Demographics

Digital Environments

Educator Digital Practices

Educators’ Digital Knowledge and Attitudes

Discussion

Educator Practices: Contradictions and Dilemmas

Educators’ Confidence, Knowledge and Skill with Digital Technology

Developing and Using an Early Childhood Digital Pedagogy

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References