Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper reports on a scoping review on teachers’ knowledge of supporting play-based learning using ICT in Early Childhood Education (ECE) (aged 0–8 years) in the literature from January 2015 to January 2025. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework was used to analyse 47 peer-reviewed empirical studies. This review finds that Pedagogical Knowledge of play-based pedagogies for teaching young children exhibits different practical foci. Teachers’ knowledge of play-based pedagogies revolved mainly around these three main types of play identified: play-based learning in child-initiated free play; play-based learning with curriculum objectives in teacher-initiated guided play, and play-based learning with a balanced approach (using a combination of free play and guided play). Although a wide range of ICTs have been integrated into play-based learning in ECE, thus advancing teachers’ and children's technological knowledge, most studies focused on utilising ICT in play-based learning for guided play rather than in free play and a balanced approach to play-based learning were identified.

Keywords

early childhood education ICT play-based learning scoping review TPACK

Introduction

Early Childhood Education (ECE) typically enrolls children from birth to the start of compulsory education, around age five or six in many countries (Australian Government, 2025; DfE, 2021, 2025; Department of Homeland Security, 2025; Ministry of Education, 2018). However, UNICEF (2019) defines it more broadly, encompassing children aged 0 to 8 years. Learning experiences for young children in ECE are shaped by the interplay of the curriculum, pedagogy and the child's intrinsic motivations (Bendini & Devercelli, 2022). The curriculum outlines the key learning areas and intended outcomes for fostering young children's holistic development (Keung & Cheung, 2019), usually including physical health, social and emotional growth, literacy and numeracy, understanding of the world, and self-expression through the arts, while pedagogy refers to the strategies and approaches used by a teacher to support children's learning (Bendini & Devercelli, 2022).

ECE is characterised by various pedagogical approaches, yet play has remained a cornerstone philosophy since Friedrich Fröbel established the first Kindergarten in the early 1800s (Fröbel, 1889; McNair & Powell, 2021). The integration of play into ECE, pioneered by Friedrich Froebel (Teichert et al., 2024) and advanced by scholars like Maria Montessori and John Dewey, is founded on its value for fostering cognitive, emotional and moral growth (Robinson et al., 2018; Saracho & Spodek, 1995). Despite varied definitions and theoretical lenses over the past 150 years (Saracho & Spodek, 1995). These perspectives and philosophies laid the foundation for integrating play into the learning in ECE and inform today's play-based learning programmes, thus positioning play not just as a medium for children's learning, but as a meaningful experience that supports agency, curiosity and whole-child development (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022; Fleer & Van Oers, 2018). The importance of play-based learning is well recognised (Bubikova-Moan et al., 2019; Earick, 2010; Mertala, 2017; Pyle et al., 2017), where young children gain learning through a wide range of play genres (Fleer & Van Oers, 2018; Fleer, 2010; UNICEF, 2018).

Pedagogical approaches to play exist on a spectrum. The concept of ‘free play’ refers to children initiating and having control over their play (Whitaker & Tonkin, 2024), also known as ‘child-led play’ (Pyle et al., 2017). In many countries, school curricula requirements place a growing emphasis on explicit teaching expectations, which can marginalise play-based pedagogies (Hesterman, 2019; McCabe & Farrell, 2021). Teachers are increasingly expected to incorporate academic learning, which can be referred to as adult-led guided play (Pyle et al., 2017), while others might hold varying views of it as ‘playful learning’ (Pesch et al., 2025) or as adult-led ‘non-play’ (Bubikova-Moan et al., 2019). Balanced approach encompasses both free play and guided play, each contributing to the child's learning experience in distinct ways (Baker et al., 2023).

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006), aims to help teachers integrate technologies into various teaching contexts and enhance their practice. The TPACK framework has three main domains (see Figure 1): Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and Technology Knowledge (TK). The knowledge domain in the three intersecting domains is called Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which emphasises that knowledge in the three intersecting domains is essential when teachers integrate ICT into educational practices. Mishra (2019) added Contextual Knowledge (XK) to the revised framework, highlighting the importance of teachers’ understanding the specific context in which they work, including school culture and policies, student demographics and needs, and other external factors that influence the effective integration of these domains.

Figure 1.

Revised version of the TPACK framework with definitions (Mishra, 2019).

ICT in ECE generally refers to both old and new technologies used to communicate information (Hesterman, 2011; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015). In this review, ICT specifically refers to any type of digital device used in an educational setting, including desktop computers, laptops, iPads, software, digital applications, and any application associated with the Internet (Arnott, 2016). As ICT permeates early learning environments (Danby et al., 2018), understanding how teachers integrate ICT with play-based pedagogies is both timely and essential. The TPACK framework has been selected in this scoping review to shed light on teachers’ knowledge of integrating ICT (TK) into the teaching and learning of academic content and supporting children's social skills (CK) utilising play-based pedagogies (PK) in ECE, and to explore how XK influences how teachers apply their knowledge.

While there is existing research that explores ICT use in ECE settings and how ICT is integrated within play-based pedagogies in ECE, this scoping review aims to map the current research landscape on teachers’ knowledge of ICT integration to facilitate play-based pedagogies in ECE with a specific focus on the TPACK framework to inform future professional development and policy.

Research Objectives

There is an increasing trend of children using ICT in ECE (Craft, 2012; Hatzigianni et al., 2018; Vandewater et al., 2007). Many scholars believe that integrating ICT into the ECE programme enhances young children's learning (Disney et al., 2019; Kewalramani et al., 2021; Magnusson, 2021). Studies found that children's early experiences in reading and writing on touchscreens and using digital applications for literacy learning contributed to the development of young children's emergent literacy skills (Neumann, 2016; Neumann & Neumann, 2017). However, teachers’ ideological conflict regarding the appropriateness of utilising ICT in play-based pedagogy has been the primary impediment to the use of ICT in ECE (Aldhafeeri et al., 2016; Hatzigianni & Kalaitzidis, 2018; Schriever et al., 2020).

While ICT is increasingly present in classrooms, research indicates a significant gap between access and effective play-based integration, often due to variations in teacher confidence, training, and philosophical alignment with developmental approaches (Johnston et al., 2018; Paudel et al., 2017). This scoping review furthers our understanding of ICT integration in ECE by examining teachers’ knowledge of integrating ICT with play-based pedagogies in ECE via the TPACK framework. The objective of this scoping review is to find out what is known from the existing literature about how teachers’ knowledge of using ICT enhances play-based pedagogies and young children's learning.

Methods

A scoping review methodology was selected for this research to examine studies on how ICT enhances play-based pedagogies in young children's learning. This approach was selected because the research aim is inherently exploratory, aiming to map the broad topic from a diverse body of literature, rather than to answer a narrowly defined question about the effectiveness of a specific intervention (Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2020). This process can also yield a map of the current landscape and identify gaps in the research (Wald et al., 2024), which can inform future, more precise systematic reviews by clarifying the specific questions that can be valuably addressed.

According to Peters et al. (2020), a scoping review must be well-planned and driven by a pre-defined protocol with detailed objectives, questions (s), and methods, including inclusion criteria and data extraction plans. The evidence screening and selection process was conducted by a minimum of two independent reviewers to ensure rigour (Peters et al., 2020). The process began with a pilot test of the inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure consistency among the first author and two co-authors, followed by screening the titles and abstracts of all identified records against the predefined criteria. Articles deemed potentially relevant were retrieved in full-text and shared securely with the reviewers via MU OneDrive for the second stage of screening. Three reviewers independently assessed the full-text articles for final inclusion. Any disagreements at either stage were resolved through discussion to reach a consensus. The complete study selection process was documented narratively and visually presented using a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (Tricco et al., 2018).

This review is organised around five core procedures as follows: ‘(1) identifying research questions, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data, and (5) summarising and reporting the results’ (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005, p. 22).

Identifying Research Questions

The title indicates the topic for scoping review, using the PCC mnemonic (Population, Concept, Context) as a guide (Peters et al., 2020) and through the TPACK lens (Mishra, 2019). It includes Peters et al.'s (2020) core PCC elements of Population (young children aged 0–8 and their teachers), the Concept (the intersection of TK, PK, CK, XK), and the Context (play-based learning integrating ICT in ECE settings).

Two research questions guide the findings. RQ1. What insights does the literature provide regarding the intersection of teachers’ technological knowledge (TK) and play-based pedagogies (PK) in facilitating children's (aged 0–8) learning of content and skills (CK)?

RQ2. How does Contextual Knowledge (XK) influence the ICT integration in ECE? The questions delve into the specific knowledge domains (TPACK) that constitute the main concept of the review, as outlined in the research title, which provides a broad, mapping-focused overview (Tricco et al., 2018). This allowed a wider range of studies to be included in the scoping review, enabling the identification of gaps in the current literature.

Identifying Relevant Studies

According to Arksey and O'Malley (2005), the main objective of a scoping review is to be as comprehensive as possible. Hence, various search strategies across multiple databases were used to identify the relevant studies.

Information Sources

The electronic databases of Scopus, ERIC and Web of Science were used to broaden the search for relevant journal articles. The last search was conducted in January 2025, consistent with the process outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005).

Study Selection

The Boolean search terms AND and OR were used to find as many relevant studies as possible. The set of key terms used for searching for relevant studies was: ‘Early Years Education’ OR ‘Early Childhood Education’ OR ‘Early Years Programme’ OR ‘Early Years’ OR ‘preschool’ OR ‘kindergarten and ‘digital technology’ OR ‘ICT’ OR ‘technologies’ OR ‘digital technologies’ AND ‘play’ OR ‘play-based learning’ OR ‘play-based’ AND TPACK.

Inclusion Criteria

Specific topic. This review focuses on how ICTs are used with play-based learning in the ECE with children aged 0–8 years. The age parameters ensure that they are old enough to meaningfully engage with ICT and still fall within the upper age limit for ECE.

Time. The selected peer-reviewed literature was drawn from the last ten years (between 2015 and 2025). According to the present literature, there is one systematic review of 26 studies on digital technology usage by and with young children at home and school to support the formulation of a national statement on young children and digital technologies by Early Childhood Australia (ECA) (Mantilla & Edwards, 2019). The current literature has no record of a scoping review on teachers’ knowledge of supporting play-based learning using ICT in ECE (aged 0–8) after 2015. Some studies from this time period were not relevant because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, specifically, they did not explicitly mention play-based learning in ECE or ICT in play-based learning. The review included six studies that explicitly referenced play-based learning online for ECE.

Specific peer-reviewed articles. The research studies were written in English, presented empirical data and focused on teachers’ knowledge in the ECE setting, using different types of ICTs in play-based programmes with young children (aged 0–8 years old). For this scoping review, only empirical studies were included to ensure the analysis was grounded in original research findings rather than secondary interpretations (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Exclusion Criteria

Studies on children older than 8 years old, exploring technology usage beyond the ECE, studies not explicitly focusing on young children's play-based learning in ECE, and literature reviews were excluded.

The search of electronic databases, including Scopus, ERIC, and Web of Science, yielded 1245 articles. After using modified search terms in the advanced search function and removing duplicate records, 438 articles were identified (see Figure. 2). A further 268 articles were excluded from the review upon examining the relevance of these studies based on the titles and abstracts, after 85 duplicate studies were removed. The remaining 85 articles were reviewed, and after reviewing the full articles, 38 articles were excluded (11 studies did not explicitly focus on play-based learning in ECE; four studies did not include empirical data; five studies focussed on preservice teachers’ perceptions; eight studies focussed on digital play at home (parents) or in the community; three articles were literature reviews). Hence, the final 47 articles were included in this review.

Figure 2.

Flow diagram for study selection.

Charting the Data

Each included article (n = 47) was then ‘charted’ (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005), to extract information into a spreadsheet for analysis, including author(s), year of publication, country of studies, participants (students and/or teachers), sample size, research design, framework or theory used, type of teacher knowledge, ICT used, and key findings (see the Appendix A: Overview of the studies).

Findings

This scoping review analysed 47 studies to map the evidence on ICT in play-based pedagogies in ECE. The findings are structured to directly address the two research questions by exploring the core knowledge intersections (RQ1) and then by examining the contextual factors that influence them (RQ2). The primary novel contribution of this review is the synthesis of patterns and relationships across the literature, which are presented below to directly address the two research questions. The corpus consisted of 42 qualitative studies, one quantitative study, and four mixed-methods studies, with a predominant focus on children aged 0–8 years. This included five studies involving children younger than three, which fall within the accepted early childhood age range (Jack & Higgins, 2019b; Karno & Hatcher, 2019; Lindeman et al., 2021; Rappa et al., 2025; Samuelsson, 2025). One study included children aged 3–13 years old, but this review only extracted and reported data relevant to children aged 8 and below.

RQ1. What insights does the literature provide regarding the intersection of teachers’ technological knowledge (TK) and play-based pedagogies (PK) in facilitating children's (aged 0–8) learning of content and skills (CK)? The first research question examined the interplay between teachers’ TK, PK related to play-based approaches, and CK of children's learning. The findings are presented through the lens of the TPACK framework.

Technological Knowledge (TK) and Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

TK refers to teachers’ knowledge of ICT for teaching and learning (see Figure 1). A variety of ICTs were used in ECE (see Appendix A). PK refers to teachers’ knowledge of pedagogies for teaching and learning with young children through various types of play, including free play, guided play, and balanced play. This review identified a wide range of technologies that teachers integrated with play pedagogies. The most prevalent tool was the iPad (n = 25), followed by various technological resources and tools, including tablets and applications (n = 8). Other technologies included the Internet of Toys (n = 1), AI robotic toys (n = 1), floor robots (n = 1), and interactive whiteboards (n = 2). Of these, one study had a multi-touch table, and the applications were specially designed for the study. These tools were applied within distinct play approaches: free play (n = 11), guided play (n = 27) and balanced play (n = 9), including adaptations made during the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 6).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

This integration also fostered two relatively new play types involving ICT, including digital play and converged play.

Digital Play

The integration of ICT into children's play, referred to as digital play (Bird & Edwards, 2015), is characterised as interactive, social and active (Karno & Hatcher, 2019; Kucirkova et al., 2014). Lawrence (2018) identified four forms of digital play in ECE, namely practice/task, exploratory, construction and presence. Digital play during COVID-19 school closures evolved (n = 5) as teachers used ICTs like iPads and web applications to maintain interactions (Hu et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021) and share digital content for home-based, play-based learning (Dayal & Tiko, 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Laxton et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021), relying heavily on parents’ support (Timmons et al., 2021).

Converged Play

Converged play is a relatively new play pedagogy that emerged in 2010 with the introduction of the iPad (Edwards et al., 2020). Children participated in learning experiences intertwined with technology, media and popular culture (e.g., a character from a child's favourite movie from home) (Edwards, 2016). The key features of converged play are multi-modal, global-local and traditional-digital (Edwards et al., 2020). Edwards et al. (2020) explained that multimodal play involves the simultaneous use of various modes of communication, such as speaking, listening, drawing and engaging with digital technologies. Global-local play connects children's experiences with globally popular digital games and media while being grounded in their local contexts. Traditional-digital play combines conventional play with digital elements, enabling exploration and interaction with both physical and digital resources. These characteristics help teachers understand and adapt their practices to better support children's learning in a digital-rich environment. Studies have also found that such play experiences bridge learning and play in both school and at home (Fantozzi et al., 2018; Wohlwend, 2017).

Content Knowledge (CK)

CK refers to teachers’ knowledge of teaching specific content, categorising teachers’ CK in terms of (a) development of various skills (n = 10); (b) academic content learning (n = 26), including literacy, numeracy, computer science, physical and emotional, arts; and (c) holistic learning (n = 11) (see Appendix A: Overview of the studies). Holistic learning also includes a focus on ICT in play-based assessment enhancing educators’ ability to document and evaluate learning processes through visual tools, supporting both formative and summative assessments, though its effectiveness depends on meaningful integration beyond simple recording (Danniels et al., 2020).

Skill Development

There were studies that specifically focused on children's development of social and emotional skills (n = 3), while others focused on the development of children's problem-solving skills (n = 3), negotiation skills (n = 1), play skills (n = 1) and collaboration skills (n = 1). Studies on young children's play-based learning during COVID-19 school closures focused heavily on how to support children's play-based learning at home, as well as their well-being (n = 6).

Academic Content Learning

Academic content includes numeracy (n = 6), computer science (n = 1), Art (n = 1), literacy development (n = 17) and a combination of both literacy and numeracy (n = 1).

Holistic Development

Holistic development of children refers to teachers’ consideration of ‘children's physical, psychological, social, emotional and spiritual well-being’ in addition to cognitive development (AGDE, 2022, p. 20). Some studies focused broadly on children's holistic development through play-based learning experiences in ECE (n = 11).

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) refers to teachers’ knowledge of integrating PK with CK. This review categorises teachers’ knowledge of play-based learning as free play, guided play and balanced play to facilitate children's learning. Notably, more studies implemented play-based learning for skills development through free play (n = 5) than guided play (n = 3). In contrast, academic content learning was predominantly supported through guided play, with only one study using free play. For holistic development, blended play approaches were most common (n = 9), while only two studies adopted guided play.

Integrating TK and PK to Support Learning of Content and Skills (CK): TPACK

TPACK refers to teachers using their knowledge about ICT (TK) and play-based pedagogies (PK) to support children's learning of academic content and academic and social skills (CK). ICT is integrated into children's play, skills development, academic content learning and holistic development (see Appendix A).

Synthesis and Emerging Insights

The synthesis of evidence revealed several novel patterns regarding the interplay between teachers’ knowledge domains. While individual studies documented specific technologies, this review's synthesis categorises the pedagogical approaches into a novel typology. The analysis demonstrates that the choice of play pedagogy is not random but is strategically linked to both the technology used and the learning goal. Guided play was the dominant pedagogy (n = 26), particularly for academic content learning. This suggests a prevailing view of technology as a tool for structured, goal-oriented instruction within play-based learning. Free play primarily served skills development (n = 10), indicating its application where process, not a specific academic outcome, is the focus. Balanced play emerged as the distinctive approach for holistic development (n = 11), highlighting that integrating technology for whole-child growth requires a flexible blend of child-directed and teacher-facilitated play.

The Evolution of a Play-Technology Continuum. A key finding from mapping the evidence is a discernible new typology on how established and new play types are represented. Established play types (Free, Guided, Balanced), being more prevalent, form the foundational pedagogical structure into which technology is integrated. Technology-specific play types (such as Digital play, Converged play) are expressions of the established types. For example, ‘digital play’ can manifest as free digital play (exploratory apps) or guided digital play (a teacher-led coding activity).

Another novel insight gleaned from this scoping review is the application of the TPACK framework as a deductive analytical lens to systematically map and critique the entire corpus of literature on ICT in play-based learning in ECE. While seven included studies explicitly used TPACK to investigate areas like digital tools in play and numeracy (Disney et al., 2019; Miller, 2018; Muir et al., 2016), teacher skills (Chen et al., 2024), pedagogical reasoning (Jack & Higgins, 2019b; Yang & Dong, 2024) and teachers’ experiences in delivering play-based learning online during the COVID-19 pandemic (Rappa et al., 2025). This review synthesises findings to reveal a critical gap in the literature, which is the lack of a holistic understanding of how teachers synergistically combine technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK) to effectively transform play-based learning in ECE.

RQ2. How does Contextual Knowledge (XK) influence the ICT integration in ECE?

XK represents the knowledge that teachers have about the context in which they operate, including system and policy, school-level, teacher-level, child-level, and family and community contexts. The second research question focused on how XK influenced the integration of ICT. The findings are organised across multiple contextual levels.

XK: System and Policy

In relation to system and policy context, a significant barrier identified was the lack of coherent national policies (Chen et al., 2024; Wohlwend, 2017) and support (Laxton et al., 2021), such as funding (Luo et al., 2021) for ICT integration in early learning. The COVID-19 pandemic brought urgency to digital implementation but also revealed gaps in policy preparedness and school readiness (Dayal & Tiko, 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Laxton et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021; Rappa et al., 2025; Timmons et al., 2021). Additionally, the rapid pace of technological change further challenged the sustainability of practices (Kewalramani & Havu-Nuutinen, 2019).

XK: School-Level

Early learning settings for children prior to formal schooling are more commonly described as early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings, such as preschools, kindergartens, early learning centres, nurseries or daycare. In this review, school-level is interpreted as referring to the encompassing the organisational, structural or program as a whole that offers education and care for children aged 0–8 years (see Appendix A: Overview of Studies). At the school setting, culture, learning environments, technological infrastructure, curriculum and ICT guidance were found to influence ICT integration practices. CT integration was heavily influenced by existing practices (Fleer, 2017; Hatzigianni & Kalaitzidis, 2018), curriculum frameworks (Flewitt et al., 2015; Kewalramani et al., 2020) and access to technological resources (Aslan et al., 2022; Edwards et al., 2020; Kewalramani et al., 2020; Miller, 2018; Muir et al., 2016). The physical learning environment (Mou et al., 2021; Rulyansah et al., 2023; Vogt & Hollenstein, 2021) and a general absence of specific ICT guidance (Disney et al., 2019; Sakr et al., 2016; Yang & Dong, 2024) were also critical factors.

XK: Teacher-Level

Of paramount importance were teacher-level factors, such as beliefs, attitudes, comfort levels, digital skills and familiarity with ICT, which consistently shaped their willingness and capacity to integrate ICT (Jack & Higgins, 2019a; 2019b; Lawrence, 2018; Miller, 2018). Many teachers expressed concerns about screen time, lack of confidence and insufficient knowledge of how to embed ICT within play-based or socially oriented pedagogies (Bird & Edwards, 2015; Kervin, 2016; Mou et al., 2021; van der Westhuizen & Hannaway, 2021). A recurring theme was the limited availability of training and professional development, leaving teachers underprepared, particularly when they were expected to align ICT integration with early learning outcomes (Danniels et al., 2020; Edwards, 2016; Magnusson, 2021; Rappa et al., 2025; Samuelsson, 2025). The lack of empirical evidence demonstrating clear links between ICT use and improved learning outcomes for young children contributed to teacher uncertainty and highlighted the need for context-sensitive, evidence-informed professional development that supports meaningful ICT integration across diverse early years environments (Disney et al., 2019; Jack & Higgins, 2019b; Yang & Dong, 2024).

XK: Children-Level

At the children's level, teachers had to adapt to variations in young children's learning dispositions, existing ICT abilities and developmental readiness across different learning contexts (Makonye, 2020; Rappa et al., 2025; Timmons et al., 2021), as well as unequal access to ICT (Karno & Hatcher, 2019; Kewalramani & Havu-Nuutinen, 2019; Rulyansah et al., 2023).

Children's age is a critical contextual variable that influences teachers’ TPACK decision-making when integrating ICT, as it must align with children's developmentally appropriate practices (Karno & Hatcher, 2019; Samuelsson, 2025). This review found that older children (e.g., 5–8 years old) demonstrate greater technological fluency in navigating apps, solving problems, and collaborating with peers (n = 42), compared to younger children (particularly those under 3 years) (n = 5), who require more scaffolded support and are more likely to engage in solitary, exploratory or parallel play (see Appendix A: Overview of Studies ). Karno and Hatcher (2019) emphasised that 2-year-old children benefited from play with a multi-touch table with Kaplan Early Learning Apps when teachers actively mediated interactions to enhance collaboration, social engagement and problem-solving. Similarly, studies that guided play with floor robots have fostered engagement and problem-solving in younger children (1–2 years), who required sustained adult mediation and simpler, sensory-based interactions with the robots (Lindeman et al., 2021; Samuelsson, 2025). Notably, when educators integrated different types of ICT to facilitate guided play for children aged 0–5 years, they adjusted their pedagogical approaches to ensure developmental appropriateness for children under 2 years (Jack & Higgins, 2019b). Children's age also shapes teachers’ technological and pedagogical decisions in virtual environments. Rappa et al. (2025) reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers adapted their TPACK to deliver guided play online, enabling even 2-year-old children to participate through multiple digital platforms such as Seesaw and Microsoft Teams on iPads and computers.

The types of ICT devices and applications selected for use in ECE are also a critical contextual factor, as each ICT tool carries distinct pedagogical affordances and limitations. Teachers align their technological and pedagogical decisions with an intended learning purpose, whether it is supporting early mathematics, literacy development, physical movement, problem-solving or various forms of play. Hence, teachers draw on nuanced TPACK to match the device to the developmental stage of the child, their learning goals and class settings. This requires teachers not only to understand how the technology works, but to anticipate how different tools mediate children's engagement, collaboration and skill development across varied learning contexts.

XK: Family and Community Contexts

As for the family and community context, parents’ roles contributed significantly to contextual dynamics as their involvement, preferences and concerns about ICT use shaped ICT use in the classroom (Arnott, 2016; Fantozzi, 2021). While some parents encouraged digital engagement, others expressed hesitation, requiring teachers to navigate varied expectations (Rappa et al., 2025; Yang & Dong, 2024).

The cross-study analysis in this review has yielded a novel, multi-layered model of contextual influence, revealing which factors are most pervasive and how they dynamically interconnect. A significant finding is the primacy of teacher-level factors, which emerged as the most frequently and intensely reported barrier to integration, outweighing policy gaps. While inadequate policy was noted as a problem, the most immediate obstacle to implementation was consistently teachers’ limited confidence, training and pedagogical understanding of how to weave technology into play. This indicates that robust and sustained professional development is needed.

Furthermore, the synthesis of studies from the COVID-19 pandemic period (n = 6) reveals its unique role not as a creator of new barriers, but as a powerful magnifier of pre-existing weaknesses. The pandemic starkly exposed the lack of policy preparedness, inadequate school-level resources and profound gaps in teacher professional development, forcing a reactive and often less pedagogically sound adoption of technology across educational contexts.

Discussion

This scoping review provides a comprehensive synthesis of how ICT is integrated with play-based pedagogies in ECE by analysing 47 studies through the lens of the TPACK framework. This review extends beyond describing individual knowledge domains to reveal critical insights into the intersections between teachers’ knowledge domains and the contextual factors that shape their implementation. The discussion addresses the two research questions, focusing first on the integrative knowledge required for effective practice and then on contextual factors at the ecological levels that enable or constrain successful ICT integration in ECE practice.

Interplay of Teachers’ TK, PK and CK

The findings demonstrate that teachers’ CK encompasses not only subject-specific domains, such as literacy, numeracy, arts and science, but also broader developments in academic skills and holistic learning goals. While literacy received strong emphasis across the reviewed studies (n = 17), consistent with curricula that prioritise print-based literacy learning (Muir et al., 2016; Wohlwend, 2015), other important domains were also evident. Teachers supported children's development of a wide range of skills through technology-mediated play. These included social skills (Arnott, 2016), negotiation and collaboration (Fleer, 2017), and broader developmental outcomes such as creativity and problem-solving fostered through role-play activities (Fleer, 2018) and opportunities for imaginative and collaborative engagement (Fleer, 2020). Collaborative skills, social development, problem-solving and technology competence were also highlighted (Karno & Hatcher, 2019). Children constructed and negotiated art-making experiences, demonstrating agency and collaboration (Sakr et al., 2016). Collaborative play further fostered interaction, creativity and problem-solving (Sakr & Scollan, 2019). Playful learning contexts supported a variety of outcomes, including coding, language and mathematical skills, as well as collaboration, physicality and imagination (Kewalramani et al., 2020). Physical activity integrated with social interaction provided additional benefits (Aslan et al., 2022), while pretend play promoted communication, collaboration, creativity, problem-solving and critical thinking (Vogt & Hollenstein, 2021). Similarly, playful learning has been shown to enhance collaborative learning and communication skills (Edwards et al., 2020), boost creativity and communication (Muir et al., 2016), and contribute to children's social, emotional and cognitive development (Edwards, 2016). These findings suggest that teachers’ CK extends beyond academic content to include holistic developmental goals, highlighting the importance of considering a diverse body of literature that addresses the integration of technology in supporting both cognitive and socio-emotional dimensions of learning.

Integration of TK and PK Revealed Sophisticated Approaches Across Different Play-Based Pedagogies

Free Play Contexts

ICT enhanced learning complexity through digital animation applications that supported role-play and increased cognitive and social demands (Fleer, 2020). Role-playing areas were enriched through the use of working and imaginative technologies (Fleer, 2017, 2018; Vogt & Hollenstein, 2021), while computers supported collaborative learning during free-choice activities (Karno & Hatcher, 2019). Children demonstrated collaborative problem-solving using interactive whiteboards, with drawing applications on iPads supporting shared learning (Flewitt et al., 2015; Miller, 2018; Sakr & Scollan, 2019). Besides these, teachers also utilised iPad apps to facilitate child-initiated learning and enhance school-family communication by engaging parents’ understanding of play-based learning (Fantozzi, 2021).

There is growing recognition of the need for teachers to reconceptualise play and the nature of children's digital experiences (Bird, 2020; Fleer, 2018). A digital play framework explains children's learning progression from epistemic play, where they explore how digital tools work, to ludic play, where devices are used creatively or embedded into imaginary scenarios, allowing children to engage in free play with tablets (Bird & Edwards, 2015). This framework has since been applied to better understand children's free play with tablets (Hatzigianni et al., 2018), informing the design of learning environments and advancing technology education in ECE (Edwards & Bird, 2017).

Guided Play Contexts

TPK emerged as teachers move beyond simply providing hands-on experiences with technology to focus on how and when to purposefully integrate ICT into children's learning. iPads and educational apps supported inquiry-based exploration in science learning (Kewalramani & Havu-Nuutinen, 2019). Similarly, digital tablets created communicative, playful environments aligned with curriculum goals (Flewitt et al., 2015). Virtual and digital play were co-constructed by teachers and children, revealing emerging pedagogies that blended TK and PK to form effective TPK (Fleer, 2020). StoryTech toys and AI-based robots were used to foster inquiry literacy and storytelling skills, extending traditional literacy learning practices (Kewalramani et al., 2021; Mou et al., 2021; Wohlwend, 2015). Teachers applied a broader range of ICT tools throughout the curriculum in ways that supported pedagogical goals and reflected play-based practices (Jack & Higgins, 2019b; Kewalramani et al., 2020).

Teachers demonstrated adaptive expertise when encountering technological limitations, such as with interactive whiteboards that allow only single users, by encouraging turn-taking to foster collaboration and social learning (Sakr & Scollan, 2019; Sakr & Oscar, 2022). A noticeable shift in teacher practices was observed from allowing ICT use mainly during free play to integrating it into intentional, goal-driven learning experiences (Fleer, 2017; Jack & Higgins, 2019a, 2019b; Johnston et al., 2018).

Balanced Play Contexts

Balanced play with ICT represents a pedagogical model where guided, technology-linked activities coexist with child-directed, free play. This approach was well-established prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic, as evidenced by studies where teachers structured learning so that some children worked with interactive whiteboards, tablets or other educational technologies in guided play settings, while their peers simultaneously engaged with other choices in free play settings (Jack & Higgins, 2019a, 2019b; Johnston et al., 2018). This model effectively supported holistic development and various social, emotional and cognitive skills by integrating applications and digital resources within flexible play structures (Edwards, 2016). The value of this balanced approach was magnified during the pandemic, where ICT enabled learning, connecting young learners at home to their curriculum, peers and teachers with balanced synchronous and asynchronous play-based and inquiry-based learning online (Rappa et al., 2025; Laxton et al., 2021; Timmons et al., 2021). These linkages supported children's emotional well-being and ability to cope with stressful situations (Dayal & Tiko, 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2021).

The distribution of play-based pedagogies with ICT across the reviewed studies reveals important patterns, with guided play being most prevalent (n = 27), followed by free play (n = 11) and balanced play (n = 9). Play is heavily anchored in physical and hands-on activities that involve movement and exploration (Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015; Palaiologou, 2016; Schriever et al., 2020). This is exemplified by Aslan et al.'s (2022) study, where teachers explicitly designed learning experiences that integrated technologies such as the immersive ‘Kid Space’ for guided play to achieve specific developmental goals, including physical activity and social interaction. While guided play supports academic and cognitive development within a playful framework (Baker et al., 2023; Pesch et al., 2025; Weisberg et al., 2016), the comparative reduction in free play (n = 11) raises valid concerns. The emphasis on guided, goal-oriented technology use may risk diminishing opportunities for creativity, imagination and self-regulation, especially in tech-enhanced learning environments (Kewalramani & Havu-Nuutinen, 2019; Lindeman et al., 2021; Wood, 2014).

Across the studies reviewed, teachers employed various forms of play: free play, guided play and a balanced approach to play to engage children in meaningful learning. Free play promoted autonomy and creativity. Guided play was the most frequently used approach, enabling teachers to design structured yet engaging activities that aligned with academic content goals. Balanced play seeks to integrate child-led exploration with intentional teaching and clear learning objectives, especially during online learning contexts (e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic). These findings reinforce that play-based pedagogies are not merely recreational but are effective pedagogical tools for delivering curriculum in ways that are developmentally appropriate (Baker et al., 2023; Zosh et al., 2018).

Nevertheless, diverse genres of play should be viewed as intersecting instead of being distinct. For example, converged play was observed in guided play for emergent literacy development (Fantozzi et al., 2018) and learning in ECE as a whole (Edwards, 2016; Edwards et al., 2020). Guided play and free play may concurrently exist in a play-based program (Fleer, 2017) or a balanced approach to play-based learning is achieved by means of teacher-led instruction and children engaging in play to practice independently (Fleer, 2017). Teachers in some studies used a balanced approach to provide purposeful learning experiences and free play simultaneously. For example, teachers took turns working with an individual child or a small group of children with learning objectives, and children had child-led free play whenever they were not working with their teachers (Jack & Higgins, 2019a, 2019b; Johnston et al., 2018; Sakr & Oscar, 2022). Studies (n = 6) found that teachers used the balanced approach during COVID-19 school closures when they provided playful learning experiences online.

This review's analysis of 47 studies reveals that play-based learning with ICT is a globally significant pedagogical approach, with research contributions from a wide range of contexts including Australia (n = 14), the United Kingdom (n = 8), the United States (n = 7), China (n = 5), Canada (n = 3), Sweden (n = 3), South Africa (n = 3), Greece (n = 1), Norway (n = 1), Switzerland (n = 1) and Fiji (a Small Island Developing State – SIDS) (n = 1). This international scope highlights that the integration of ICT with play-based learning in ECE is a widespread trend, not limited to any specific educational system. The diversity of the research corpus, which also includes studies from smaller nations and developing states, enriches our understanding of how core pedagogical aspects of play are universally valued, yet adaptively applied alongside technology across different cultural and national landscapes.

Pervasive Influence of XK

This review highlights the importance of XK in shaping ICT integration in ECE. The findings span five interconnected domains: system and policy, school, teacher, child, and family and community. Across the 47 studies, it was shown that teacher-related factors were the most significant influences for ICT integration. As TPACK is primarily concerned with teacher knowledge, we examined teachers’ perspectives in context through the lens of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (1979). Within Bronfenbrenner's model, the teacher's beliefs and culture are situated at the core, encircled by influences across microsystem (colleagues, students and families), mesosystem (interactions between the microsystem factors), exosystem (institutional level: school system, funding, policies), macrosystem (national level: cultural and technical norms, standards) and chronosystem (time: COVID-19 pandemic) (Voogt & Knezek, 2021; Woodland et al., 2024).

Teachers’ perspectives on play and their concerns about children's motivation to engage with ICT can exclude children from digital play (Palaiologou, 2016). Teachers who view play as mutually exclusive with ICT may take protective measures to limit children's digital interactions (Edwards et al., 2020; Schriever et al., 2020). On the other hand, teachers who view children as the right as consumers using ICT in their play (Edwards, 2013) are more likely to integrate ICT into children's play as a means to build children's technical ability (Edwards & Bird, 2017; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015; Rulyansah et al., 2023). Teachers’ beliefs, confidence, digital competence and access to professional development significantly shaped their ICT use, often requiring personal judgment in the absence of structured support (Bird & Edwards, 2015; Edwards, 2016; Miller, 2018). Teachers’ attitudes (Hatzigianni & Kalaitzidis, 2018; Jack & Higgins, 2019b; Sakr & Scollan, 2019) and professional learning opportunities are mediators of successful technology integration (Bird, 2020; Kewalramani et al., 2021; Rappa et al., 2025). Additionally, children's ICT readiness, learning dispositions and access to devices varied across contexts, exacerbating digital inequities (Rulyansah et al., 2023; Timmons et al., 2021; Walters, 2020).

The types and quality of ICT used were also shown to significantly influence children's engagement and learning (Makonye, 2020). Age-appropriate applications that support numeracy and early math concepts play a crucial role in enhancing purposeful learning experiences (Disney et al., 2019; Makonye, 2020; Miller, 2018). Open-ended apps were associated with higher levels of child-initiated learning and creative exploration in play-based learning programs (Fantozzi, 2021; Fantozzi et al., 2018; Flewitt et al., 2015), while closed-ended apps were typically linked to rote learning or task-specific activities (Lawrence, 2018). It is essential for teachers to develop technological knowledge that aligns with curriculum content to integrate technology meaningfully through play.

Children's ICT readiness, learning dispositions and device access varied across contexts, exacerbating digital inequities (Rulyansah et al., 2023; Timmons et al., 2021; Walters, 2020). The pandemic highlighted the critical role of parents, with teachers utilising online platforms to partner with home-educating parents and enhance play-based learning during lockdowns (Laxton et al., 2021). Teachers promoted play-based home learning by sharing digital guides to help parents understand this approach (Laxton et al., 2021). Mixed parental attitudes toward ICT influenced teachers’ decisions and created tensions between home-school expectations (Fantozzi, 2021; Yang & Dong, 2024).

This review holistically mapped XK through Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), capturing influences across microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem (time: COVID-19 pandemic) (Voogt & Knezek, 2021; Woodland et al., 2024). In framing the findings through the Ecological Systems Theory, we shift the focus from a static mapping of contextual factors to a dynamic analysis of the ecological system.

Research Gaps and Future Recommendations

This scoping review, guided by the principle that identifying substantive gaps is essential for advancing knowledge (Wald et al., 2024), has used the TPACK framework to illuminate several critical and worthwhile areas for future research. The synthesis of 47 studies reveals not merely a need for more research, but specific, conceptual gaps that hinder a deeper understanding of how to effectively integrate ICT into play-based pedagogy in ECE.

Despite growing research interest in integrating ICT in play-based learning in ECE, this review identified several gaps in the literature. First, a significant TPACK-related implementation gap was identified. Teachers’ knowledge of teaching with ICT is formed at the intersections of technological, pedagogical and content domains from the TPACK framework; the extant literature remains predominantly focused on these domains in isolation. A novel insight from this review is the scarcity of empirical research that explicitly investigates the synergistic knowledge required for practice, particularly in how to adapt technology for specific play-based approaches to fundamentally transform the content being learned (TPACK) for young children in ECE. Second, while this review systematically maps XK through Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological systems theory, it reveals a gap in understanding the dynamic interdependencies between these contextual levels. The current literature predominantly treats factors at the microsystem, mesosystem, macrosystem, exosystem and chronosystem levels as discrete entities. This indicates a critical need for research that moves beyond static identification of contextual factors to investigate the processes and mechanisms of these cross-level interactions over time (Wald et al., 2024). Future studies should employ longitudinal and qualitative methodologies to trace how influences propagate through the ecological system, providing a more nuanced understanding of how to effectively support ICT integration in diverse ECE settings. Third, the field would benefit from deeper exploration of converged play and digital play in ECE settings, as these emerging forms of play are under-theorised and under-researched. Four, studies rarely include the voices of children, parents or longitudinal data to evaluate long-term learning outcomes with ICT. Lastly, existing research is disproportionately concentrated in high-income, Western contexts, highlighting a need for cross-cultural and socioeconomically diverse studies to broaden the global understanding of ICT integration in ECE.

Based on the findings of this review, it is recommended that future research should explore how teachers holistically apply the TPACK framework, including CK, PK, TK and XK, in play-based environments. There is also a need to investigate how XK, particularly at the macro and chrono levels, such as national policies, funding structures and sociohistorical events like the COVID-19 pandemic, influences teachers’ practices with ICT and children's play-based learning experiences. It also recommends involving parents, exploring how a shared understanding of using ICT to support young children's holistic development through play can be developed. Expanding research to include socioeconomically and culturally diverse settings is also critical for developing globally relevant and inclusive pedagogical practices. More research is needed on effective, context-responsive professional development models that equip teachers with the TPACK competencies necessary to implement ICT meaningfully in play-based curricula. Finally, ICT in most of the studies was limited to the use of the iPad, tablet and applications; future studies could explore other types of ICT.

Conclusion

This scoping review demonstrates that effective ICT integration with play-based learning in ECE requires a sophisticated understanding of the intersections between technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, while navigating complex contextual factors across multiple ecological levels. Teachers’ capacity to integrate ICT is strongly influenced by their TK, PK and XK. The findings reveal that while teachers are increasingly incorporating ICT tools in developmentally appropriate ways to implement play-based pedagogies, there remains considerable variation in how effectively ICT is used to enhance content learning. Despite the fact that play-based learning is universally accepted as an approach in ECE, the 47 studies in this collection exhibit different foci. Guided play emerged as the most frequently reported strategy for embedding ICT into learning, offering structured yet playful learning experiences. However, balanced approaches appear to provide greater flexibility and responsiveness to children's individual needs and developmental stages.

Effective integration of ICT in ECE depends not only on teachers’ technological and pedagogical skills but also on their capacity to navigate and respond to a wide range of contextual factors. Critically, the review underscores the significant impact of contextual knowledge (XK) across multiple levels. Systemic factors, such as the presence or absence of national ICT policies, funding and curriculum guidance, intersect with school-level infrastructures and cultural norms to enable or constrain ICT integration. At the teacher and student levels, teachers’ beliefs, confidence and familiarity with ICT, as well as students’ digital access, developmental readiness and learning dispositions, emerge as key influences. Family involvement and expectations add another layer of complexity to this landscape, emphasising the diverse and interconnected factors that define Contextual Knowledge (XK). A consistent finding across the literature is the urgent need for professional development that is both pedagogically robust and sensitive to the varied contexts in which teachers work. Additionally, many national ICT policies and early years curricula lack specific guidance for technology use, leaving teachers to rely heavily on personal judgment. This gap in systemic support is further compounded by persistent digital inequities among children and schools, a challenge that has become even more visible in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

By framing the findings within the TPACK framework and extending it through the lens of Contextual Knowledge (XK), this review highlights the importance of addressing both the internal capacities of teachers and the external systems they operate within (Hatzigianni & Kalaitzidis, 2018; Yang & Dong, 2024). Future efforts to support ICT integration in ECE must recognise this dual focus, empowering teachers with appropriate training and resources while also advocating for systemic, policy-driven support that promotes equitable and effective digital learning environments for all young children.

The findings show that effective ICT integration in ECE must be developmentally appropriate, context-sensitive, and pedagogically intentional. ICT should be selected and used not solely for their technological appeal but for their capacity to enhance creativity, collaboration, and deeper learning. Additionally, longitudinal studies are needed to trace the long-term impacts of early ICT engagement on children's literacy and numeracy trajectories. Lastly, teacher professional development models that emphasise design thinking, reflective practice, and contextually relevant pedagogy in conjunction with ICT integration are essential for empowering teachers in the digital age.

Limitations

The key limitation of this review is that it examined the findings and descriptions of teachers’ practices without reviewing the methodological rigour of these studies. This would be beyond the parameters of this scoping review, but a follow-up systematic review evaluating the research methodology employed in these studies is recommended. Other limitations include the possibility that certain studies were excluded from this evaluation due to the use of a restricted set of key phrases based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, this review may have overlooked other studies that incorporated some features of play-based learning but did not specifically refer to it as a method of instruction. Finally, the authors acknowledge that the focus only on play-based learning is in itself a limitation. Nevertheless, the inclusion of broad conceptualisations of play-based learning would make this review of interest to those teaching and researching within the ECE context.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-bre-10.1177_25902547261421648 - Supplemental material for Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Knowledge of Information and Communication Technology Integration (ICT) in Play-Based Learning: A Scoping Review Using the TPACK Framework

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-bre-10.1177_25902547261421648 for Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Knowledge of Information and Communication Technology Integration (ICT) in Play-Based Learning: A Scoping Review Using the TPACK Framework by Qiuying Xie, Natasha Anne Rappa and Sandra Hesterman in Beijing International Review of Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval was not required for this study since no empirical studies were conducted, and no human data or participants were involved.

Funding

The research was supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

ORCID iDs

Qiuying Xie

Natasha Anne Rappa

Sandra Hesterman

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Aldhafeeri

Palaiologou

Folorunsho

(2016). Integration of digital technologies into play-based pedagogy in Kuwaiti early childhood education: Teachers’ views, attitudes and aptitudes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1172477

Arksey

O'Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Arnott

(2016). An ecological exploration of young children's digital play: Framing children's social experiences with technologies in early childhood. Early Years (London, England), 36(3), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1181049

Aslan

Agrawal

Alyuz

Chierichetti

Durham

L. M.

Manuvinakurike

Okur

Sahay

Sharma

Sherry

Raffa

Nachman

(2022). Exploring kid space in the wild: A preliminary study of multimodal and immersive collaborative play-based learning experiences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10072-x

Australian Government. (2025). Schools in Australia. Study Australia. https://www.studyaustralia.gov.au/en/plan-your-studies/schools

Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE]. (2022). Belonging, Being and 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

Baker

S. T.

Le Courtois

Eberhart

(2023). Making space for children’s agency with playful learning. International Journal of Early Years Education, 31(2), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.1997726

Bendini

Devercelli

(2022). Quality early learning: Nurturing children’s potential (1st ed.). World Bank Publications.

Bird

(2020). ‘You need a phone and camera in your bag before you go out!': Children's play with imaginative technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12791

10.

Bird

Edwards

(2015). Children learning to use technologies through play: A digital play framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12191

11.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design (1st ed.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26071r6

12.

Bubikova-Moan

Næss Hjetland

Wollscheid

(2019). ECE teachers’ views on play-based learning: A systematic review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(6), 776–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1678717

13.

Chen

Hong

H. Y.

Chai

C. S.

Liang

J. C.

(2024). Highlighting ECE teachers’ proximal processes as designers: An investigation of teachers’ design thinking engagement, TPACK efficacy, and design vitality. Early Education and Development, 35(3), 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2023.2177492

14.

Craft

(2012). Childhood in a digital age: Creative challenges for educational futures. London Review of Education, 10(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.691282

15.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches: [pbk.] (Fourth edition.). Sage.

16.

Danby

Fleer

Davidson

Hatzigianni

(2018). Digital childhoods: Technologies and children's everyday lives. Springer.

17.

Danniels

Pyle

DeLuca

(2020). The role of technology in supporting classroom assessment in play-based kindergarten. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 102966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102966

18.

Dayal

H. C.

Tiko

(2020). When are we going to have the real school?: A case study of early childhood education and care teachers’ experiences surrounding education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 45(4), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120966085

19.

Department for Education [DfE]. (2021). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Early Education.

20.

Department of Education [DfE]. (2025). About early childhood education and care in Australia. https://www.education.gov.au/early-childhood/about#

21.

Department of Homeland Security. (2025). Study in the states: Kindergarten to grade 12 students. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/students/get-started/kindergarten-to-grade-12-students

22.

Disney

Barnes

Geng

(2019). Digital play in young children's numeracy learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119832084

23.

Earick

M. E.

(2010). The power of play and language on early childhood racial identity in three U.S. schools. Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education, 4(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595691003635955

24.

Edwards

(2013). Digital play in the early years: A contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789190

25.

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

26.

Edwards

Bird

(2017). Observing and assessing young children's digital play in the early years: Using the digital play framework. Journal of Early Childhood Research: ECR, 15(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15579746

27.

Edwards

Mantilla

Grieshaber

Nuttall

Wood

(2020). Converged play characteristics for early childhood education: Multi-modal, global-local, and traditional-digital. Oxford Review of Education, 46(5), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1750358

28.

Fantozzi

V. B.

(2021). It’s everyone’s iPad: Tablet use in a play-based preschool classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Research: ECR, 19(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X20983835

29.

Fantozzi

V. B.

Johnson

Scherfen

(2018). One classroom, one iPad, many stories. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 681–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1651

30.

Fleer

(2010). Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.

31.

Fleer

(2017). Digital role-play: The changing conditions of children's play in preschool settings. Mind, Culture and Activity, 24(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2016.1247456

32.

Fleer

(2018). Digital animation: New conditions for children's development in play-based setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 943–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12637

33.

Fleer

(2020). Digital pop-ups: Studying digital pop-ups and theorising digital pop-up pedagogies for preschools. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735741

34.

Fleer

Van Oers

(2018). International handbook of early childhood education. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0927-7

35.

Flewitt

Messer

Kucirkova

(2015). New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798414533560

36.

Fröbel

(1889). Autobiography of Friedrich Froebel: Translated and annotated by Emilie Michaelis & H. Keatley Moore. Project Gutenberg. (eBook released 2005, last updated 2020).

37.

Hatzigianni

Gregoriadis

Karagiorgou

Chatzigeorgiadou

(2018). Using tablets in free play: The implementation of the digital play framework in Greece. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 928–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12620

38.

Hatzigianni

Kalaitzidis

(2018). Early childhood educators’ attitudes and beliefs around the use of touchscreen technologies by children under three years of age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 883–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12649

39.

Hesterman

(2011). Multiliterate Star Warians: The force of popular culture and ICT in early learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(4), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911103600412

40.

Hesterman

(2019). A report on the state of play-based learning in Western Australian schools. [Printed by] The state school teachers’. Union of W.A. (SSTUWA).

41.

Chiu

M. M.

Leung

W. M. V.

Yelland

(2021). Technology integration for young children during COVID-19: Towards future online teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1513–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13106

42.

Jack

Higgins

(2019a). What is educational technology and how is it being used to support teaching and learning in the early years? International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(3), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1504754

43.

Jack

Higgins

(2019b). Embedding educational technologies in early years education. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2033

44.

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

45.

Karno

Hatcher

(2019). Building computer supported collaborative learning environments in early childhood classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09686-z

46.

Kervin

(2016). Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651907

47.

Keung

C. P. C.

Cheung

A. C. K.

(2019). Towards holistic supporting of play-based learning implementation in kindergartens: A mixed method study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(5), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00956-2

48.

Kewalramani

Havu-Nuutinen

(2019). Preschool teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical practices in the integration of technology: A case for engaging young children in scientific inquiry. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(12), 1–13. https://www.https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/109949

49.

Kewalramani

Kidman

Palaiologou

(2021). Using artificial intelligence (AI)-interfaced robotic toys in early childhood settings: A case for children's inquiry literacy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(5), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1968458

50.

Kewalramani

Palaiologou

Arnott

Dardanou

(2020). The integration of the internet of toys in early childhood education: A platform for multi-layered interactions. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735738

51.

Kucirkova

Messer

Sheehy

Fernández Panadero

(2014). Children's engagement with educational iPad apps: Insights from a Spanish classroom. Computers and Education, 71, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.003

52.

Lawrence

S. M.

(2018). Preschool children and iPads: Observations of social interactions during digital play. Early Education and Development, 29(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1379303

53.

Laxton

Cooper

Younie

(2021). Translational research in action: The use of technology to disseminate information to parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1538–1553. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13100

54.

Lindeman

Svensson

Enochsson

A.-B.

(2021). Digitalisation in early childhood education: A domestication theoretical perspective on teachers’ experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4879–4903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10501-7

55.

Luo

Berson

I. R.

Berson

M. J.

Han

(2021). Young Chinese children's remote peer interactions and social competence development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S48–S64. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1906361

56.

Magnusson

L. O.

(2021). Digital technology and the subjects of literacy and mathematics in the preschool atelier. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 24(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949120983485

57.

Makonye

(2020). Teaching young learners pre-number concepts through ICT mediation. Research in Education (Manchester), 108(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523719840051

58.

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

59.

McCabe

Farrell

(2021). Play, pedagogy and power: A reinterpretation of research using a foucauldian lens. International Journal of Early Years Education, 29(4), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1742669

60.

McNair

L. J.

Powell

(2021). Friedrich Froebel: A path least trodden. Early Child Development and Care, 191(7–8), 1175–1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1803299

61.

Mertala

(2017). Wag the dog – the nature and foundations of preschool educators’ positive ICT pedagogical beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.037

62.

Miller

(2018). Developing numeracy skills using interactive technology in a play-based learning environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0135-2

63.

Ministry of Education. (2018). Law of the People's Republic of China on Compulsory Education. http://www.gov.cn/guoqing/2021-10/29/content_5647617.htm

64.

Mishra

(2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611

65.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

66.

Mou

Kao

Lin

Yin

(2021). From action to slow motion: Enhancing preschoolers’ story comprehension ability and learning intention. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1635496

67.

Muir

Callingham

Beswick

(2016). Using the IWB in an early years mathematics classroom: An application of the TPACK framework. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1138913

68.

Munn

Peters

M. D. J.

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

(2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

69.

Neumann

M. M.

(2016). Young children’s use of touch screen tablets for writing and reading at home: Relationships with emergent literacy. Computers and Education, 97, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.013

70.

Neumann

M. M.

Neumann

D. L.

(2017). The use of touch-screen tablets at home and pre-school to foster emergent literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415619773

71.

Nikolopoulou

Gialamas

(2015). ICT and play in preschool: Early childhood teachers’ beliefs and confidence. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2015.1078727

72.

Palaiologou

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

73.

Paudel

Jancey

Subedi

Leavy

(2017). Correlates of mobile screen media use among children aged 0–8: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 7(10), e014585–e014585. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014585

74.

Pesch

Fletcher

Williams

Hirsh-Pasek

(2025). Enhancing teacher-child engagement and promoting early learning with playful learning landscapes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 98, 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2025.101786

75.

Peters

M. D. J.

Marnie

Tricco

A. C.

Pollock

Munn

Alexander

McInerney

Godfrey

C. M.

Khalil

(2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

76.

Pyle

De Luca

Danniels

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

77.

Rappa

N. A.

Xie

Hesterman

(2025). Teachers’ experiences of facilitating play-based learning online for young children during the COVID-19 pandemic in China through the lens of the TPACK framework. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 19(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.17206/apjrece.2025.19.1.49

78.

Robinson

C. E.

Treasure

O’Connor

Neylon

Harrison

Wynne

(2018). Learning through play: creating a play-based approach within early childhood contexts. Oxford University Press.

79.

Rulyansah

Hidayat

M. T.

Rihlah

Shari

Mariati

(2023). Digital play for enhancing language learning in early grades. Pegem Eğitim VeÖğretim Dergisi = Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(2), 182. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.02.22

80.

Sakr

Connelly

Wild

(2016). ‘Evil cats’ and ‘jelly floods’: Young children’s collective constructions of digital art making in the early years classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1107156

81.

Sakr

Scollan

(2019). The screen and the sand-timer: The integration of the interactive whiteboard into an early years free-flow learning environment. Journal of Early Childhood Research: ECR, 17(3), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X19851538

82.

Sakr

Oscar

(2022). Stretchy time or screen time: How early years practitioners conceptualise time in relation to children’s digital play. Early Years (London, England), 42(4–5), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2020.1744530

83.

Samuelsson

(2025). Computational transformations of early childhood education: Pathways toward child-centred computing in two educational change projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(4), 1573–1592. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13536

84.

Saracho

O. N.

Spodek

(1995). Children’s play and early childhood education: Insights from history and theory. The Journal of Education, 177(3), 129–148. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42742374 https://doi.org/10.1177/002205749517700308

85.

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

86.

Teichert

Helbig

Knox

Geier

B. A.

(2024). Friedrich Froebel. In The Palgrave handbook of educational thinkers (pp. 371–387). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25134-4_42

87.

Timmons

Cooper

Bozek

Braund

(2021). The impacts of COVID-19 on early childhood education: Capturing the unique challenges associated with remote teaching and learning in K-2. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(5), 887–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01207-z

88.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O'Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

, et al. (2018). PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

89.

UNICEF. (2018). Learning through play: Strengthening learning through play in early childhood education programmes. UNICEF Education Section, Programme Division, 3

New York.

www. Unicef.org/publications.

90.

UNICEF. (2019). The Formative Years: UNICEF's work on measuring early childhood development. UNICEF. https://data.unicef.org/resources/the-formative-years

91.

van der Westhuizen

L. M.

Hannaway

D. M.

(2021). Digital play for language development in the early grades. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v11i1.925

92.

Vandewater

E. A.

Rideout

V. J.

Wartella

E. A.

Huang

Lee

J. H.

Shim

(2007). Digital childhood: Electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Pediatrics (Evanston), 119(5), e1006–e1015. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1804

93.

Vogt

Hollenstein

(2021). Exploring digital transformation through pretend play in kindergarten. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2130–2144. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13142

94.

Voogt

Knezek

(2021). Teaching and learning with technology during the COVID-19 pandemic: Highlighting the need for micro-meso-macro alignments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28150

95.

Wald

Harland

Daskon

(2024). The gap statement and justification in higher education research: An analysis of published articles. European Journal of Higher Education, 14(2), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2189132

96.

Walters

(2020). Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 36(8), 8–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbl.30483

97.

Weisberg

D. S.

Hirsh-Pasek

Golinkoff

R. M.

(2016). Guided play: Where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12117

98.

Whitaker

Tonkin

(2024). Play and health in childhood: A rights-based approach (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003310648

99.

Wohlwend

K. E.

(2015). One screen, many fingers: Young children's collaborative literacy play with digital puppetry apps and touchscreen technologies. Theory into Practice, 54(2), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1010837

100.

Wohlwend

K. E.

(2017). Who gets to play? Access, popular media and participatory literacies. Early Years (London, England), 37(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1219699

101.

Wood

(2014). Free choice and free play in early childhood education: Troubling the discourse. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.830562

102.

Woodland

Kahler

Blue Star

Fielding

(2024). Borrowing Bronfenbrenner: An argument for increasing the intersection of diverse theoretical and applied models. Child Care in Practice: Northern Ireland Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Child Care Practice, 30(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2021.1924120

103.

Yang

Dong

(2024). What influences teachers’ implementation of ICT in early childhood education? A qualitative exploration based on an ecological-TPACK framework. Computers and Education Open, 7, 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100228

104.

Zosh

J. M.

Hirsh-Pasek

Hopkins

E. J.

Jensen

Liu

Neale

Solis

S. L.

Whitebread

(2018). Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB

Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Knowledge of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Integration in Play-Based Learning: A Scoping Review Using the TPACK Framework

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Research Objectives

Methods

Identifying Research Questions

Identifying Relevant Studies

Information Sources

Study Selection

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Charting the Data

Findings

Technological Knowledge (TK) and Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Digital Play

Converged Play

Content Knowledge (CK)

Skill Development

Academic Content Learning

Holistic Development

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

Integrating TK and PK to Support Learning of Content and Skills (CK): TPACK

Synthesis and Emerging Insights

XK: System and Policy

XK: School-Level

XK: Teacher-Level

XK: Children-Level

XK: Family and Community Contexts

Discussion

Interplay of Teachers’ TK, PK and CK

Integration of TK and PK Revealed Sophisticated Approaches Across Different Play-Based Pedagogies

Free Play Contexts

Guided Play Contexts

Balanced Play Contexts

Pervasive Influence of XK

Research Gaps and Future Recommendations

Conclusion

Limitations

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-bre-10.1177_25902547261421648 - Supplemental material for Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Knowledge of Information and Communication Technology Integration (ICT) in Play-Based Learning: A Scoping Review Using the TPACK Framework

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Ethical Statement

Funding

ORCID iDs

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material