Introduction

Although definitions of play remains contested in the literature, it is widely agreed that play provides both a context and process for learning and teaching, and therefore play-based learning has been considered as a key pedagogy in global Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) contexts (DeLuca et al., 2020). In recent years, understandings of pedagogical play have shifted to draw on socio-cultural perspectives that emphasise the proactive and engaged roles of educators in children’s play, with the uptake of intentional teaching playing a significant role in this transformation (Cutter-Mackenzie et al., 2014). Epstein (2007, p. 1) defines intentional teaching as: ‘teachers act[ing] with specific outcomes or goals in mind for children’s development and learning’. This definition was further developed by Leggett and Ford (2013) to include intentional learners and intentional curriculum (inserted italics), highlighting children’s agency and active participation in the learning process. Intentional teaching has been explicitly highlighted for the Australian ECEC community as a key pedagogical practice in the national Early Years Learning Framework since 2009 ([EYLF], Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009), and was renamed as ‘play-based learning and intentionality’ in the update of the EYLF to emphasise the intentional role of both educator and child in play (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022). The revised EYLF defines intentionality as ‘being thoughtful and purposeful in actions and making decisions’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 66) and further emphasises that intentional teaching utilises a wide range of teaching strategies, such as ‘asking questions, explaining, modelling, speculating, inquiring and demonstrating to extend children’s knowledge, skills and enjoyment in thinking and learning’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 22).

However, recent studies have highlighted educators’ struggles in conceptualising their roles as intentional teachers and in implementing intentional teaching in play-based programs due to a perceived tension in the pedagogical relationship between play-based learning and intentional teaching (Barblett et al., 2016; Leggett & Newman, 2017; Lewis et al., 2019; Taylor & Boyer, 2020). Educators can see play-based learning and intentional teaching as a pedagogical binary, as they often regard play-based learning as maintaining children’s agency in free play and intentional teaching as leading children towards certain learning outcomes through direct instructions (Edwards, 2017; Thomas et al., 2011). Though the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) acknowledged the importance of both play-based learning and intentional teaching, Edwards (2017) argued that it failed to provide sufficient practice guidance on how to integrate the two as a new cohesive whole. Prior to the implementation of the EYLF, educators’ roles had been broadly defined as facilitator, carer and guide in social policies and theoretical discourses, which had inadvertently silenced their ‘teaching’ role (Cheeseman, 2007). Hence, educators have often adopted a non-interventionist approach, setting up learning environments and resources conducive to free play but rarely actively engaging in children’s play, which alone is insufficient for the effective implementation of intentional teaching (Paro et al., 2009). Based on the survey responses from Australian educators, ECEC settings, other professionals and families, discussions framing the proposed update of the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) further specified a stronger focus on intentionality be included, highlighting the need for strengthening educators’ understanding of the connections between intentionality and play-based learning as well as the role of children and educators in play and learning (Hadley et al., 2021).

A consensus on educators’ roles in intentional teaching has not been reached in the literature, despite the growing agreement on the importance of educators’ active involvement in children’s play. For example, while some researchers highlight teacher-directed practice where educators step into children’s play to introduce concepts and skills as a critical aspect of intentional teaching (Lewis et al., 2019), others consider the two as separated intentional pedagogies (Kilderry, 2015; Kirkby et al., 2018). In practice, educators tend to assume that intentional teaching is only associated with the interactions and explicit teaching that occur between them and the children they are responsible for (Barnes, 2012). Furthermore, only a limited number of studies have closely examined the nature of intentionality and intention in relation to intentional teaching (DeLuca et al., 2020; Grieshaber et al., 2021; Wu & Goff, 2021). While the revised EYLF (AGDE, 2022) includes an emphasis on intentionality, it still has not specified the intentions that educators need to use to guide their decision-making and actions. This may have led to confusions and misinterpretations of intentionality across educators, ECEC service providers and early childhood education programs (Leggett & Ford, 2013; Walker & Bass, 2015). This lack of specificity is mirrored by McLaughlin et al. (2016) in the New Zealand context, who argue that with limited guidance within the early childhood framework Te Whāriki on intentional teaching, it is not surprising that educators often hesitate to engage in intentional teaching and tend to stand back and let the children play, with limited adult involvement.

Educators’ confusion of what qualifies as intentional teaching, and hesitation to implement it in play-based programs, have led to calls for a close examination of the nature of this pedagogy. In response, Author 1 undertook a rapid literature review to examine key concepts and debates in existing discussions regarding intentional teaching. In conducting the literature review, it became evident that while there is a growing body of research on intentional teaching, there is limited literature specifically focussed on the decision-making process involved. Therefore, Author 1 went on to adapt the human intentional action model (Tomasello et al., 2005) to provide further insights into this aspect of intentional teaching. Informed by the review findings, this discussion paper aims to conceptualise intentional teaching from two aspects: intentionality and the decision-making process. While educator and child intentionality are the starting point of intentional actions, the decision-making process enables educators to have ongoing intentionality behind their teaching practices. We contend that being intentional requires educators to have ongoing intentionality throughout the teaching day, and to engage in active decision-making processes to support and extend children’s learning through a mixture of child-directed, adult-led and guided learning experiences. Having ongoing intentionality allows educators to plan for opportunities for children to learn, alongside being continuously aware of spontaneous teachable moments that arise in all spaces. Therefore, we concur with scholars who tie intentional teaching to educators’ professional identities (e.g. Kilderry, 2015), and further advocate for a broader view of educators’ roles in intentional teaching by focussing on the intentionality behind decisions and actions.

This discussion paper makes a valuable contribution to the field by closely examining intentionality and the roles of both educator and children in intentional teaching, drawing on literature on relational pedagogy. This is particularly useful for framing discussions and critical reflections to support educators' understanding of intentionality introduced by the EYLF (AGDE, 2022) in the Australian ECEC context. The discussion on intentional decision-making, informed by the human intentional action model (Tomasello et al., 2005), builds on this examination by providing a framework for understanding how educators make intentional decisions in practice. Together, these two aspects contribute to a holistic understanding of intentional teaching and provide opportunities for educators to examine and articulate their intentionality behind decisions and practices.

This paper sets the stage by outlining the process of literature review that informs our conceptualisation and discussion of intentional teaching. It then proceeds to explore the concept of intentionality from two distinct perspectives: that of educators and that of children, highlighting that both have an active role to play in intentional teaching. The paper then delves into the decision-making process involved in educators’ intentional teaching practices, illustrating how educators can draw upon observations and reflections to continuously inform their intentional decision-making. Finally, drawing on the findings from the literature review, the paper advocates for a broader view of intentional teaching in ECEC and discusses implications of this reconceptualisation of intentional teaching on educators' professional practices and autonomy in play-based programs.

Method

The rapid literature review underpinning this discussion paper was conducted as part of a larger research project, serving as the foundation for this study, by providing an overview of the current state of knowledge and understanding on intentional teaching. The rapid literature review approach was selected as it adapts the rigour of systematic review methodology and allows researchers to gather a broad overview of the existing literature on a specific topic over an accelerated time frame (Grant & Booth, 2009; Khangura et al., 2012). The scope of the review is international, with a focus on Australian literature, and covers publications from 2010 to 2022. Both peer-reviewed literature and grey literature (including government documents, e-newsletters and reports) related to intentional teaching published in English in the early childhood education discipline are included, to investigate how intentional teaching is conceptualised and explained in recent literature and policies (Benzies et al., 2006). Author 1 began the review by searching in online education research databases including EBSCO Host and ProQuest Education Database using the following key terms: ‘[‘Intentional teaching’ OR Intentionality] AND [Early Childhood] AND [ENGLISH]. The results were then screened to remove duplications and to select for inclusion based on a close or sustained focus on intentional teaching in early childhood play-based programs, as opposed to a fleeting mention or exploration of intentional teaching in other contexts such as secondary education. From this screening process, 64 scholarly publications were selected for inclusion. Moreover, academic publications by key authors published prior to 2010 relating to human intentional actions and relational pedagogies were also included in the development of this paper to deepen the discussion of intentionality and the decision-making process.

Educators’ intentionality

According to Malle (2001), intentionality is a feature unique to humans which can be defined as a quality of actions that are done on purpose, while intention refers to an individual’s mental state that represents such actions. For educators’ decisions or actions to be qualified as intentional, they must be aware of their intention(s), and not all intentions are seen as leading to practices that are considered intentional (Gullo & Hughs, 2011). Epstein (2007) argues that intentions encompass specific outcomes or goals for children’s learning and development, as well as the strategies or approaches used to achieve those outcomes. Ideally, intentional teachers draw on research evidence regarding critical skills, knowledge and concepts for children to learn to inform curriculum decision-making (Lewis et al., 2019; Walker & Bass, 2015). Since the publication of the Starting Strong II report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2006), there has also been an increasing emphasis on using predetermined outcomes (often specified in curriculum documents) in early childhood teaching across international ECEC policies (Little & Cohen-Vogel, 2016). For example, in the Australian ECEC context, educators need to draw on the learning outcomes outlined in the EYLF in curriculum planning and decision-making (Kirby et al., 2018). These outcomes focus on children’s sense of identity, sense of community, wellbeing, learning dispositions and communication skills, which were purposefully designed to be relatively broad to allow educators to design various learning pathways responding to individual children’s needs, characteristics and local contexts (Leggett & Ford, 2013). Being intentional requires educators to carefully and purposefully plan every aspect of their practices, and make connections between learning outcomes and curriculum design (Gullo & Hughs, 2011).

However, Grieshaber et al. (2021) suggest that there exist varied understandings of the term ‘learning’ among early childhood educators and researchers due to differences in their underlying theoretical beliefs, which may impact on what areas of learning and development are chosen for intentional teaching, and how learning outcomes are articulated and evaluated. For example, from a developmental perspective, learning focusses on more or less predictable progressions in children’s social, emotional and cognitive development (Neale & Pino-Pasternak, 2017), while from a socio-cultural perspective, learning is seen as a dynamic, complex and nuanced process that also involves their prior knowledge and ways of knowing (Wood & Hedges, 2016). Additionally, based on an academic logic, learning in early childhood is related to academic skills and content knowledge such as literacy and numeracy (Little & Cohen-Vogel, 2016). These diverse understandings of learning may have contributed to the confusion regarding what intentions should be the focus of intentional teaching (Grieshaber et al., 2021). Moreover, while the use of learning outcomes has enabled educators to plan for and engage in intentional teaching practices, researchers have noted that this increasing emphasis on predetermined outcomes may have contributed to a dilemma for educators, due to perceived conflicts between expected learning outcomes and traditional beliefs about child-led learning in and through play (Thomas et al., 2011). Further, a close examination of how the term ‘outcome’ is referred to in the literature related to intentional teaching revealed varied ways of using this term, sometimes referring to specific content and knowledge construction (e.g. literacy, maths) while other times relating to broad long-term developments (e.g. wellbeing) (Grieshaber et al., 2021). The differences in how the term outcome is perceived and used may have also added to the confusion regarding what to teach in intentional teaching.

Drawing on literature on relational pedagogy, we contend that including relationship building as a specific intention in intentional teaching would support educators making connections between their understanding of children’s learning, context, predetermined learning outcomes and intentional teaching. While many educators place great importance on forming strong and caring relationships with children, only a limited number of studies have recognised the significance of relationship building in intentional teaching (Hedges & Cooper, 2018; McLaughlin et al., 2016; Walkers & Bass, 2015). In relational pedagogy, warm and reciprocal adult–child relationships are considered as the foundation of teaching and learning, as they enable children to establish a sense of security which leads to exploration and engagement in the learning environment (Albin-Clark et al., 2018; Bath, 2013; Brebner et al., 2015). Through intentional actions such as showing interest in the child, providing physical comfort and affection, responding to children’s initiations, asking questions, listening and engaging in children’s play and routines, providing encouragement and support, educators foster meaningful connections with children which can then be used as a tool to promote aspects of learning across developmental domains (Brebner et al., 2015). Moreover, as mentioned previously, perceptions of learning are highly contextual and diverse in the ECEC context. Responsive relationships and interactions also allow educators to gather in-depth understandings of children’s funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) and their current learning and development (Bath, 2013). These understandings are indispensable in shaping specific learning goals that are responsive to the needs of children and their context, and are linked to broader predetermined learning outcomes (McDonald, 2018).

The intention behind educators’ actions and decisions could be proactive, for example, when they purposefully set up the learning environment and design the routines to facilitate specific learning goals (Walker & Bass, 2015). It could also be responsive, for example, when educators co-construct spontaneous play scenarios with children and scaffold-related concepts through improvisation. Intention is imperative in educators’ planning but can also be at times spontaneous and arise during adult–child interactions (Malle, 2001). However, neither planned nor spontaneous teaching intentions happen by chance (Walker & Bass, 2015). Rather, educators need to have clear and deep understanding of children’s strengths to purposefully develop the intention in everything they do in the learning environment. This ranges from relationship building with children, families, and colleagues, and creating the indoor and outdoor learning environment, to planning and implementing learning experiences in the curriculum, interacting and co-constructing with children, and observing, assessing and reporting children’s learning (Epstein, 2007). As Walker and Bass (2015, p. 29) argue, intentional teaching should be ‘everything and all we do, all of the time’.

While everything educators do in the learning environment should be part of their intentional teaching, as mentioned previously, not all intentions are seen as leading to practices that are considered as intentional teaching (Gullo & Hughs, 2011). For an action to be qualified as intentional teaching, educators need to be aware of the intentions behind it, and the intentions need to be connected to children’s learning goals and outcomes (Epstein, 2007). The same actions may be informed by different intentions. For example, one educator may decide to stand back while children are jumping in the puddle because it keeps them occupied, while another educator chooses to do so based on the intention of providing children opportunities to explore cause and effect. Though both actions appear similar, the second educator demonstrates more teaching intentionality in the decision-making of next steps. This is particularly important in spontaneous intentional teaching, in which educators develop responsive teaching intentions on-the-spot, drawing on observations of children’s play and interactions. It also requires educators to engage in reflection-in-action so that they can select and adjust teaching strategies based on children’s responses in the moment (Schön, 1987), which will be further discussed in the active decision-making process.

Children’s intentionality

While educators’ intentionality has often been highlighted as a key factor in effective intentional teaching, children’s intentionality, which is also an indispensable part in intentional learning, is less discussed in the literature (Leggett & Ford, 2013). The revised EYLF (AGDE, 2022) has included an emphasis on children’s intentionality, highlighting their right and capacity in participating in decision-making regarding their learning. Intentional learning, according to Bereiter and Scardamalia (2018), is the strategic thinking process that regard learning as a goal rather than an incidental result. It involves the decision to participate in the learning experience as well as the commitment and persistence to follow through. In this sense, children’s intentionality is connected to their agency in learning, taking ownership for their thoughts and actions to achieve learning goals and construct knowledge. Including children’s intentionality in the discussion of intentional teaching is aligned with the recent shift of the image of the child, from being vulnerable, innocent and needing protection, to being capable and competent agents in their own learning (Zosh et al., 2017). It also aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), which requires educators to challenge the unequal relationships of power and acknowledge and respect children’s rights in contributing to their own learning. Further, when children’s agency is respected and promoted in learning, they develop positive learning dispositions and a strong sense of identity, belonging and wellbeing (Boylan et al., 2018; Mashford-Scott & Church, 2011), which contributes to their holistic development and sits well within outcome frameworks (e.g. EYLF, 2022; Te Whāriki, 2017).

Even though all play experiences may offer opportunities for incidental learning, intentional learning is likely to occur when situational factors meet children’s intrinsic needs, creating learning goals and opportunities for children (Leggett & Ford, 2013). Leggett and Ford (2013) describe this co-constructing, bi-directional relationship in learning as the teacher/learner nexus, which is a key consideration in intentional teaching. Recognising the child as an intentional learner allows educators to shift their perception of children from being knowledge-receivers to active knowledge-constructors (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011), and to reconceptualise their roles as one that promotes children’s intrinsic drives for independent learning rather than merely the provider of knowledge (Leggett & Ford, 2013). We contend that this shift in thinking may also allow educators to challenge perceptions of play as merely a form of leisure or relaxation, and in turn mitigate the perceived tension between intentional teaching and play-based learning where educators see teaching and playing having competing interests. As Vygotsky (1978) argues, play is the leading source of development as it provides contexts for children to understand the world through interactions with people, materials and environments. When children engage in play, they are exercising their agency and intentionality to initiate, direct and construct their own learning, rather than just aimlessly occupying themselves with activities (Baker et al., 2021). Therefore, when educators recognise children’s intentionality and take initiatives to respond to children’s learning needs with opportune timing, they are co-constructing knowledge with children within the play context, instead of ‘interrupting’ the play.

Leggett and Ford (2013) argue that the teacher/learner nexus requires educators to respect children’s individual developing knowledge and intrinsic learning needs, while actively engaging in the learning process to co-construct knowledge. To that end, we argue that educators’ ability to facilitate the teacher/learner nexus is closely connected to intentional relationship building, as this contributes to the breath of educators’ understandings of children’s holistic learning (Bath, 2013). Moreover, through intentional engagement such as negotiation of shared meanings, communication, cooperation and even conflicts, children and educators co-construct their knowledge of the world (Edwards et al., 2017). This promotes a dynamic process to learning which ensures children’s intentions are respected and considered along with educators’ intentions when shaping specific learning goals (Hedges & Cooper, 2018). Facilitating the teacher/learner nexus also requires educators to adopt the view of children as capable and agentic co-constructors who have need for confident risk-taking and independent learning opportunities (Leggett & Ford, 2013). This calls for educators to collaborate and negotiate with children to manage risk in a proactive and positive manner, rather than adopting a ‘stand-back’ supervision approach or restricting children’s play to protect children, particularly relevant to the intentional teaching in the outdoor learning environment.

Active decision-making in intentional teaching

According to Epstein (2009), intentional teaching is characterised by educators' knowledge of both what and how they want children to learn. This notion of intentional teaching encompasses both the ‘what’ (i.e. intentionality) and the ‘how’ (i.e. decision-making) of teaching. Intentionality alone does not define intentional teaching; deliberate decision-making is another crucial aspect that enables educators to implement intentional teaching effectively in play-based learning. As mentioned previously, educators often feel reluctant to be ‘active’ in children’s play as they worry that they may disrupt children’s learning, due to the long-held notion of children’s free play, and educators’ role in play (Pyle & Daniels, 2017). However, a number of researchers have shown that child-initiated, guided and adult-directed learning are all critical to children’s learning (Edwards et al., 2017; McLachlan et al., 2018; Marbina et al., 2011). While explicit teaching of concepts and skills is critical, especially in some learning areas such as mathematics and science, open-ended play where children have opportunities to explore and consolidate new concepts independently and/or with peers in an unrushed manner is also indispensable (Clements & Sarama, 2011; Edwards, 2017; Fleer & Hoban, 2012; Wood, 2010). To that end, educators engage in active decision-making, in which they constantly make professional judgements about when and how to step into children’s play, as well as when to step out to create opportunities for free exploration and peer scaffolding. Here, we inserted the word ‘active’ to illustrate educators’ autonomy in the process, as they constantly and actively seek information, assess the situation and adapt their roles to enhance children’s learning.

The human intentional action model

While the literature on intentional decision-making has grown in recent years, the focus has primarily been on educators' ability to explain their decision-making for intentional teaching and their experiences with curriculum decision-making (Batchelar, 2016; Cherrington, 2018; Kilderry, 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2016). Despite this progress, there is still a significant gap in our understanding of the internal processes involved in intentional decision-making and how these relate to educators' intentionality. To bridge this gap, we adapted the human intentional action model from Tomasello et al. (2005) to intentional teaching in the ECEC context. According to Tomasello et al. (2005), individuals’ intentional actions involve three key interrelated components: goal, action and perceptual monitoring. For an individual to perform an intentional action, he/she needs to first have a goal, and then engage in the decision-making process to choose an intended course of action, drawing on the stored knowledge/skills and his/her mental model of the reality. When applying this model to intentional teaching, ‘goal’ refers to the learning goals the educator has for each child. Guided by the goal, the educator engages in the decision-making process by drawing upon their knowledge and skills to extend children's thinking, while also considering children’s current learning progress and intentions. The active decision-making process informs the educator’s teaching intention, which then drives the action. Meanwhile, the educator monitors the situation through observation to determine children’ s learning progress (current reality), whether the action is executed as intended, and the result caused by the action (Tomasello et al., 2005). Throughout this process, the educator needs to critically reflect on the information gathered through observation and proceed to the next cycle of decision-making. This involves reflection-on-action which usually happens after the teaching act, and reflection-in-action which happens during educators’ observations and interactions with the children (Anderson, 2019).

This process of active and ongoing decision-making is closely aligned with the Early Years Planning Cycle in the revised EYLF (AGDE, 2022), which places a strong emphasis on using an ongoing cycle of observation, analysing learning, planning, implementation, and reflection to facilitate and extend children’s learning. It shows the nature of teaching in early childhood and is at the core of successful implementation of intentional teaching in play-based learning. As Barnes (2012) highlights, intentional teaching sometimes cannot be easily observed. For example, at times, educators may choose to step back and observe children’s play in order to facilitate observation, exploration and peer scaffolding, even though this may seem ‘inactive’. What determines whether educators are enacting intentional teaching is not the action, but the intentionality. Hence, we contend that instead of solely focussing on the actions, a greater emphasis should be placed on the decision-making process so that educators can justify their chosen actions based on their professional knowledge and knowledge of the child.

Discussion

The findings from this discussion paper have significant implications for educators working in ECEC in relation to how they perceive and enact intentional teaching in play-based learning. Ambiguity within current discourses surrounding learning, teaching and play may have contributed to complexities between educators' intentionality and external expectations. While there is an increasing focus on the role of ECEC to prepare children to be future productive citizens (OECD, 2017) and academically ready for school (Haslip & Gullo, 2018; Kay, 2022), the EYLF (AGDE, 2022) specifically highlights play-based learning as a fundamental pedagogy to support children’s holistic learning, encompassing cognitive, physical, social, emotional, personal and spiritual domains. However, educators may struggle to find a balance between play and teaching, as they often feel pressured to juggle learning outcomes with traditional beliefs about child-led learning through play when making curriculum decisions (Grieshaber et al., 2021; Hedges & Cooper, 2018). This challenge can become particularly evident when the discourse to make children ready for school through the explicit focus on literacy and numeracy is seen as conflicting with the prioritisation of other domains of learning, such as spiritual, emotional and relational development, which may receive less attention. While the revised EYLF (AGDE, 2022) emphasises the importance of ongoing intentionality in all professional aspects, there is limited guidance on how to connect expected learning outcomes and children’s agency and needs in learning with this intentionality. When educators feel reluctant to be ‘active’ in children’s play, seeing this as being disruptive to learning (Pyle & Daniels, 2017), the approach to intentional teaching is then privileged in more structured academically focussed learning activities. This approach can lead to educators being challenged to fully embrace intentional teaching in play-based learning, as the action of allowing children to engage freely in the play, while an intentional decision, is not then connected to deliberate and purposeful planning for learning. As such, educators may resort to defaulting to either overly structured learning experiences or completely unstructured play activities.

To navigate these challenges and complexities, this paper advocates for a broader view of intentional teaching by focussing on the intentionality behind decisions and actions. It is clear from the findings that it is the intentionality and active decision-making that distinguishes intentional teaching practices from other actions. Moreover, the intentionality in intentional teaching is also predicated on there being specific intentional learning goals for children to frame the decision-making and the intentional teaching approaches. By developing greater understanding by educators of the connection between intentional teaching, intentionality and play, a space is created whereby educators can develop a pedagogy that is responsive to children’s learning needs by adopting a process of goal, action, perceptual monitoring (observation) and reflection (Tomasello et al., 2005). This cycle of ongoing active decision-making prompts educators to be aware and explicit of their and children’s intentions, which in turn facilitates and enhances educators’ understanding of and engagement in the teacher/learner nexus in learning. By focussing on the intentionality rather than a fixed set of teaching strategies, educators are able to plan and adapt their intentional teaching practices based on their understanding of children’s learning intentions, needs, context and content. It also allows educators to embed intentional teaching across time, such as in forward planning, responding in the moment and reflection afterwards. This conceptualisation of intentional teaching highlights intentional educators’ role in children’s play as fluid, responsive and purposeful, and offers a way to see play and learning as an integrated whole instead of binaries.

Further, the active decision-making process proposed in this paper provides opportunities for educators to examine and articulate their intentionality behind decisions and practices through the lens of a human intentional action model (Tomasello et al., 2005). Recent studies have identified the need for tools that support educators in articulating intentionality, as educators’ ability to explain and justify their teaching practices often varies and there seems to be a lack of agency and confidence in recognising and articulating their role as intentional teachers (Batchelar, 2016; Cherrington, 2018; McLaughlin et al., 2016). A possible explanation is that the professionalisation of the ECEC sector has led to growing emphasis on prescribed standards, accountabilities and standardised approaches to teaching, which in turn have restricted educators’ work as a technical exercise and limited their professional autonomy (Kilderry, 2015; Osgood, 2006). The sense of limited scope to exercise professional autonomy and to work collegially has been identified as a key factor contributing to educator job frustration, ultimately leading to burnout and leaving the profession (Fenech et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2017). As highlighted by the OECD and researchers, the Australian and global ECEC contexts continue to face ongoing and significant workforce challenges, such as high turnover rates and staff shortages (Fenech et al., 2022; Melnick et al., 2022; OECD, 2019; Wiltshire, 2023). To mitigate these challenges and ensure the provision of quality early childhood education, it is critical that educators are empowered to navigate the complex demands and interests that shape their work. This can be achieved by providing guidance and tools that support educators to articulate, share and collaborate on intentional teaching, which in turn builds their confidence and agency in making professional judgments, thereby fostering a sense of professional identity as intentional teachers (Kilderry, 2015; Oosterhoff et al., 2020).

Conclusion

Drawing on literature on intentional teaching from 2010 to 2022, this paper advocates for a broader view of educators’ role in intentional teaching by focussing on the intentionality behind decisions and actions. This approach foregrounds early childhood educators’ professional decision-making by making the connection between goal, action, perceptual monitoring and reflection more explicit. This explicit connection may assist with strengthening educators’ understanding of the link between intentionality and play. The paper adapted the human intentional action model (Tomasello et al., 2005) to illustrate the active decision-making process in intentional teaching, which has the potential to be used a tool to facilitate individual and team reflections on intentionality, and to enhance educators’ agency in shaping and articulating intentional teaching practices. Moreover, this paper contributes to the debate around the use of predetermined outcomes through suggesting a specific focus on intentional relationship building and advocating a holistic view of curriculum and learning. An avenue for future research resides in leveraging empirical data to further develop the active decision-making into a reflective tool.