Introduction

The increasing centrality of digital technologies in young children’s everyday lives cannot be ignored (Mantilla & Edwards, 2019; Plowman, 2015), and digital technologies are reshaping childhood in new and exciting ways (Burr & Degotardi, 2021; Nolan et al., 2021). In response, as part of the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), introduced in 2009, greater utilisation of digital technologies has been recommended through Outcome 4.4 (children developing skills and capabilities with digital technologies), and Outcome 5.5 (children using digital technologies to represent their thinking) for early years centres (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2022). This position is supported by the National Quality Framework (NQF) Element 3.2.2, introduced in 2012, which addresses the importance of young children’s access to digital technologies for learning and engagement (Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2012). Given these desired outcomes in mandated frameworks, this study set out to investigate digital integration, and in particular, children’s independent use of digital technologies in a selection of early years centres (EYC) in Western Australia. The article commences with a review of digital technology policy and issues in the early years before introducing the Digital Technology Activity Framework (DTAF) which guided the investigation and analysis. The article concludes with a series of recommendations for practice, based upon the study findings.

Frameworks for guiding young children’s engagement with digital technologies

Early years centres in Australia provide long day care and educational programmes for 71% of young children from birth to four years annually (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2019); the role of these centres in shaping children’s learning and development cannot be underestimated. Importantly, according to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), many foundational digital technology core competencies and skills can be established by age five (ISTE, 2007). This finding may be supported by the ease of young children’s access to digital technologies, with one third of Australian children owning their own tablet or smartphone (ACMA, 2020); both Mantilla and Edwards (2019), and Zabatiero et al., (2018) report that children aged birth to two years spend an average of 14 h and children aged three to five spend an average of 26 h a week engaging with digital technologies. Therefore, supporting the development of young children’s foundational capabilities to use digital technologies appropriately in EYCs is both important and necessary.

In 2009, the EYLF, a national framework created to ensure quality and consistency in early childhood programmes across Australia, acknowledged the importance of building digital capacity among young children through Outcomes 4.4 and 5.5 (DEEWR, 2022). This was reinforced in 2012 by the introduction of the NQF, a regulatory framework designed to oversee early childhood sector standards, through Element 3.2.2 (ACECQA, 2012). Both the NQF and EYLF digital policy statements are set out below in Table 1.

Table 1 NQF and EYLF statements on digital technologies in EYC
Full size table

Both frameworks articulate not just digital technology interaction but the need to develop independence and agency in young children. The need for independence and agency is based around a social constructivist position whereby young children are increasingly accessing digital technologies to construct understanding of the world around them. Digital agency can transform young children’s capabilities and outcomes (Rogoff, 2003), stimulate curiosity (Heikkila & Mannila, 2018; Tay, 2021), better connect children to the world (Mantilla & Edwards, 2019) and help them make sense of everyday phenomena (Kewalramani & Veresov, 2022). This position is supported by Early Childhood Australia’s Statement on Young Children and Digital Technologies (ECA, 2018) which sets out digital interaction in terms of relationships (educators, children, and families), health and wellbeing (physical interaction and emotional wellbeing), citizenship (children’s legal rights and online safety), and play and pedagogy (digital play, learning and pedagogy). This wide-ranging statement also emphasises the need for effective digital literacy and pedagogy for those working in the sector.

Further, the Australian position aligns with international perspectives. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, General Comment Number 25 (2021) acknowledges the increasing importance of digital technologies in children’s lives, while the U.S. Department of Education (2016, p. 7) sets out four guiding principles for the use of technology with young children. These principles state:

  • Technology, when used appropriately can be a tool for learning.

  • Technology should be used to increase access to learning opportunities for all children.

  • Technology may be used to strengthen relationships among parents, families, early educators, and young children.

  • Technology is more effective for learning when adults and peers interact or co-view with young children.

As implied in all these principles and policy documents, the potential of digital technology can and should be leveraged for the benefit of every child (Mantilla & Edwards, 2019; NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media, 2012).

Despite this, early childhood educators have reported hesitance in using digital technology with young children (Pila et al., 2022). Reasons cited include lack of confidence (Blackwell et al., 2014; Sheehan & Rothschild, 2020), lack of knowledge (Pendergast et al., 2017), and lack of training (Nikolopoulou, 2021). Hesitancy may also reflect broader societal concerns that digital technologies can negatively impact child development when used inappropriately (Council on Communications & Media, 2016; Erinfolami, 2021; Zabatiero et al., 2018). Further, Wood et al. (2019) suggest that children’s digital activities may not always be understood and therefore not valued as a means for advancing children’s competencies in the early years setting. Reports of potential health risks associated with screen use (ECA, 2018; Livingstone et al., 2017; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008) resulted in the banning of digital devices in some EYCs, and research highlights ongoing parental concerns as to how best to engage children with digital technologies (Erinfolami, 2021; Jago et al., 2012; Palaiologou, 2016). Disturbingly, only 18% of parents and educators report having adequate knowledge and skills to support young children’s online safety (Zabatiero et al., 2018). While acknowledging the ongoing debate over the appropriateness of digital technologies in young children’s lives, especially very young children (Pila et al., 2022), this research sought how best to integrate digital technologies for emerging educational purposes.

Integrating digital technologies into the early years learning environment

The EYLF and NQF digital technologies requirements in EYCs encourages EYC educators to increase their digital literacy and confidence to co-construct knowledge with children (Mantilla & Edwards, 2019), and effective preservice training and ongoing professional development is essential to provide educators with the digital capabilities to select, use, integrate, and evaluate appropriate digital technologies in the educational environment (Donohue & Schomburg, 2017; Nikolopoulou, 2021). Rapid technology change over the past two decades has transformed childhood, and both educators and parents are challenged to adjust their thinking and practices as to its appropriateness in education (Murcia et al., 2018). Arguably, digitally literate educators whose pedagogy is grounded in child development theory, have the knowledge and skills to select and use digital tools that suit the ages and developmental levels of children in their care (Murcia, 2021). Further, the Statement on Young Children and Digital Technologies sets out a range of digital pedagogical principles to guide early years educators (ECA, 2018).

In addition, both NQF Element 6.2.1 and EYLF Principle 2 (partnerships) require educators to utilise digital technologies to communicate with parents. Digital platforms such as Storypark, Seesaw, and Xplor are available for documenting children’s experiences, routines, and facilitating parent communication (Stratigos & Fenech, 2021; White et al., 2021) and many families appreciate being able to receive regular updates via these platforms (Reynolds & Duff, 2016). Arguably, educators who are digitally capable should be able to seamlessly integrate the demands of updating the digital platforms within their workday with the children in their learning environments. Early Childhood Australia (2018) cautions against ‘digital distractions’ and the overuse of apps can also have workload implications (Stratigos & Fenech, 2021).

While some research suggests inappropriate content and inconsistency in the mediation of children’s use of digital technologies could negatively affect children’s higher order thinking (Murcia et al., 2018; Radich, 2013; Zabatiero et al., 2018), there is a growing body of research into effective pedagogy, especially in the early years setting (Cauldron et al., 2015; Hansen & Hansen, 2017; Murcia et al., 2022). Importantly, it is acknowledged that digital technology use should not replace real-life investigations, physical activity, outdoor experiences, and direct physical and social interactions but rather supplement them (Donohue & Schomburg, 2017; NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media, 2012; Zabatiero et al., 2018). The integration of digital technologies as complementary resources in learning environments is further articulated in NQF Quality Area 3: Physical Environments, which mandates that quality physical environments provide opportunities to support experimentation with digital technologies and promote children’s exposure to a variety of digital technologies that enhance their learning (ACECQA, 2018).

The digital technology activity framework of EYC

To examine broad digital integration and use across EYCs, a literature informed DTAF was developed by the research team (Danby et al., 2013; DEEWR, 2022; ECA, 2018). The DTAF comprised six layers encompassing different digital technology usage from centre-based public documentation (layer 1) to children’s independent use (layer 6). It was developed with the knowledge that children’s independent use of digital technologies would not occur in isolation but be indicative of overall positions on technology integration within centres. The framework provided a scaffold for examining all elements in practice, as presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Digital technology activity framework for EYS

Full size image

While Fig. 1 illustrates the overarching framework, Table 2 provides examples of usage associated with each layer informed by the literature and the research team’s professional experience in the sector (Danby et al, 2013; DEEWR, 2022; ECA, 2018; Murcia & Cross, 2022). The examples in Table 2 were either observed in learning environments or confirmed by service directors or educators during initial piloting of the framework.

Table 2 Examples of digital technology usage in EYS against the Digital Technology Activity Framework
Full size table

The DTAF was employed to guide both data collection and analysis. The following methods section outlines the research design including participants, data collection and data analysis.

Methods

Participants

Four EYCs in the metropolitan area of Perth, Western Australia, were invited to participate in this exploratory study. A key selection criterion was that each participating centre had a minimum NQF ‘Meeting’ quality rating (ACECQA, 2018, p. 322). Purposeful convenience sampling identified four centres representing a range of governance structures and socio-economic positioning. Each was assigned a research code as summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Summaries of participating Early Years Centre (EYC)
Full size table

Within each centre, one director and two educators participated in the research. Pseudonyms were assigned to the participants (Table 3) and used for anonymity in data storage, analyses, and reporting. Data collection began following ethics approval and once consent from each centre and all participants had been obtained. Importantly, all educators involved held or were working towards a qualification in Early Childhood Education: Certificate III, Diploma, or a University Qualification. The research was conducted in the kindergarten learning environments across each participating centre.

Data collection and analysis

Data was obtained via three data collection methods: 1) desktop audit, 2) observations and 3) individual director and educator semi-structured interviews. Observations and interviews took place over a seven-month period, from December 2020 to June 2021. All data was de-identified, and pseudonyms given to centres and participants.

Desktop audit

Desktop audits were conducted to examine published evidence of digital technology integration within each centre and whether centres maintained formal public policies regarding digital technology practice and pedagogy. Audits included examination of each centre’s website for any references to digital technologies, as well as imagery suggesting incorporation of digital technologies. The audit also sought to examine whether any professional learning was provided to staff around digital technologies.

Observation

Ten structured observations of practice, pedagogy, and children’s interactions with digital technologies were undertaken and documented. Observations ranged from approximately 15 min to three hours, depending on the digitisation of the environment. Researcher observation schedules sought to categorise types of behaviours from children and educators in their learning context. Observations of the children included physical movement, fine motor skills, posture, emotions, and interactions with peers and others. Observation of the educators included their openness to child agency with digital technologies and allocation of time on devices for children. Each schedule was then analysed for frequency of observed behaviours, emotions, and interactions which were recorded as either present, emerging, or absent and then cross referenced with interview data for emerging themes. Observations included information about the learning environment, activities, and children’s interactions and reactions towards digital technologies. Photographs were taken to capture children’s digital technology usage as evidence for later analysis.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 centre directors and educators. Director interviews comprised six categories of questions: 1) personal, 2) centre based, 3) digital policy, 4) digital technology limitations, 5) communication, and 6) staff assessments. Educator questions comprised: 1) general, 2) children’s skills, 3) types of digital technologies, 4) concerns and worries, 5) experiences with digital technologies in practice, 6) parents and digital technologies, and 7) personal experiences. Interviews were transcribed and initial iterative inductive coding was undertaken. Following initial code generation, the researchers identified emerging themes which were then used deductively to re-code the data sets.

Findings

The converging data sources were mapped against the six layers of the DTAF. The findings are presented against each DTAF layer.

Layer 1. Digital sharing of vision, mission, and practice

Each centre had an active website. However, none offered virtual forums for parents, or online tours or meetings at the time of data collection.

Layer 2. Operational use of digital technologies

Tablet devices were used as an administration tool in three of the four centres for parents to record children’s attendance. The researchers were not able to ascertain further operational use of digital technologies in each centre and there were no digital policies evident in centres or reference to staff professional development with digital devices or associated pedagogies.

Layer 3. Communicating children’s development and care to parents

Each centre used a digital platform, namely Storypark, Seesaw, or Xplor to communicate with parents. All four utilised emails as a form of communication, especially in relation to enrolments. Communication methods are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Communication with parents across the four centres
Full size table

For Centre A, efficient communication with parents was a key function addressed in every interview. Storypark was used for disseminating the newsletter, daily highlights, and sharing upcoming curriculum plans. According to centre director Margaret, the key benefits of Storypark were “Educators share news and a few photos of things that have happened during the day and parents can access that. That’s where my newsletter goes, in the community section”. In addition, parents received the curriculum for the upcoming fortnight. Judy, educator, said, “every day their child is in, they’ll get the highlights and the curriculum, the Seed Plan, which is fortnightly. They get a copy of that so they know what the activities will be”. Margaret stated that she would like greater use of digital technologies for more parental involvement.

Alternatively, Centre B employed Seesaw for digital communication and every parent was given automatic access upon enrolment. Seesaw was used for documenting children’s learning and development. Kahurangi, centre director, said it’s “what families can access very easily. They get notifications about what the child’s doing and what’s happening”. Rachel, educator, stated that parents could message educators throughout the day, but admitted that the most challenging aspect of parent messaging was “having time to actually look at it”. Parent communication was also undertaken through Facebook. Rachel noted that the Facebook account was solely managed by Kahurangi and that “some parents don’t want to go on Facebook”.

Digital communication with parents, both inside and outside of working hours, was mentioned several times during the interviews in Centre C. Rebecca, centre director, listed Seesaw and Outlook as the main methods of digital communication. She said, “we use Seesaw to take pictures and share stories and videos of certain topics, things that we’re doing throughout the week, and achievements of the children”. Parents could also submit messages through the centre-wide website, which were then forwarded to individual educators.

In Centre D, centre director Serena, stated that their main digital communication platform with parents was Xplor, which allowed for discussion, updates, information flow and picture sharing. Parents signed up to this application upon enrolment. Donna, educator, described an advantage of Xplor as that parents could reciprocally communicate by commenting on the centre updates. She said, “some parents, when they’re doing some really fun stuff on the weekend then upload photos for us. We can have a look at it and the children can share what they’ve done over the weekend”. A described benefit of Xplor was its efficiency in recording children’s routines.

Layer 4. Educator’s independent digital technology use

Independent digital technology usage across the four EYC is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Educators’ independent digital technology use across the four centres
Full size table

In Centre A, educators used tablets, mobile devices, laptops, landline phones, and digital cameras. Laptops, for example, were used for purposes such as programming, web searching, downloading teaching resources, accessing online frameworks and curriculum documents, and Storypark. Educators used a digital camera to take photos of the children engaged in play but sought permission each time by asking, “do you want me to take a photo or not?”.

Educators in Centre B used iPads for their research, programming, and taking photos. They also had centre laptops (with no filters or software installed). The primary purpose of the laptops was for planning and programming, as well as communicating with parents. Rachel added the laptops were, however, “shared across the service, not for each individual staff member”. In addition, each classroom had a landline phone for internal communication.

For Centre C, educators were provided with mobile devices, tablets, and laptops. The mobile devices were used to take photos for Seesaw and to play music connected to Bose Bluetooth speakers. Kim, educator, said, “we’ve got iPhones that we use in the class to take photos to connect with Seesaw”. Kim said, “previously, we had iPads, but the quality of the photos was not as good”. Rebecca stated that digital technologies dictated the layout of the classroom and where educators situated themselves in the learning environment. For example, educators had recently moved from desktop computers to laptops which warranted the removal of permanent desks. Laura, educator, stated “most of us have our own teacher Apple Macs”. These were used for programming, communicating with parents, and personal research.

Laptops, tablets, mobile devices, and a landline phone were used by educators in Centre D. They shared the available laptops between their immediate teams, noting that there were no issues accessing one when needed. Donna stressed, “we always have access”. The tablets were used to take photos, videos, and conduct research. Educators used mobile devices for recording children’s routines, such as meals, sleep, and hygiene information, and each learning environment had a landline phone for internal and offsite communication.

Layer 5. Educator’s use of digital technology with children

Table 6 summarises digital technology usage both by educators with the children, or by the children under the supervision of educators.

Table 6 Digital technologies (educators and children) across the four centres
Full size table

In Centre A, Margaret and both educators spoke primarily about using the tablets for teaching and learning. The iPads were used for accessing YouTube, and interactive applications where the children learned sequential patterns, Phonics, animated stories, and songs. Tablets were also used for relaxation and playing calming music. Margaret added, “we do try to use it for more technical things rather than cartoons and stories. But you know, there’s some nice songs that they like”. Stephanie, educator, stated that tablets were used with small groups of children as a research tool, and to encourage social interactions through discussion. Its main advantage was versatility, and in particular the ability of educators to instantly access content in response to children’s interest. Judy, educator, added that children sometimes used the iPad to take photos. She said “the children have a go. The iPad, when it’s in its protective cover, they’re more than welcome to walk around and do what they like”. Other digital technologies included listening posts (CD player with four headphones) and Bluetooth speakers. Audio content included movie soundtrack CDs which encouraged children to dance, sing, and dress up. Judy explained that the advantage of a Bluetooth phone connection was the ability to search and download tracks instantly.

A projector and screen was used in Centre A for storytelling, and educators aimed to use it more in the future by holding virtual video calls with other classrooms, and parents as ‘mystery readers’ whereby the children had to guess whose parent was reading a story. Finally, children had access to Beebots and Cubetto, though few educators were trained to facilitate their use. Judy explained that they had “specific educators who are really whiz bang on those. In my room, Jessica does the Beebots and Cubetto with the children”. Stephanie added that children were taught how to operate the devices through explicit teaching strategies before providing them with autonomy to explore further. Stephanie highlighted the importance of children understanding the operational elements ahead of independent use.

Centre B utilised tablets, laptops, stereos, headphones, Bluetooth speakers and a printer. The tablets were a recent acquisition for their bigger screens, especially as educators sometimes had 27 children gathered around one tablet. Rachel described the newer tablet as “really cool because it’s bigger. New”. The iPads were used for YouTube, interactive videos, phonics, photos, programming, and were online accessible. Rachel explained that they made use of informative and educational videos such as ChuChu TV on YouTube, stating it was “quite informative, and educational. That’s why I chose it” and reiterated that children enjoyed time spent with the tablets. Tablets were also used by the children themselves, in tandem with the educator. For example, during a mat session Chelsea, educator, stated that they would research “what the UV is today. And write it on a poster. That’s something children will start to look up to see what it is”. She reiterated that short snippets of digital technology use were becoming more integrated into programmes and practices over time. Tablets also connected directly to Bluetooth speakers to play music, where educators hid the screen to encourage dancing and singing. The music was pre-approved by the educators and a small number of songs were used on rotation. Rachel said, “they can sing along, and you can all do the actions”. In addition, a stereo was available to play CDs when requested or as part of a structured learning experience. Finally, Chelsea acknowledged the printer was helpful for children to display their work by converting the digital to a tangible. She would work with the children to print content and “put it up on the on the wall. It goes from being on the iPad, to printed, and then it goes up on display”.

Digital technologies available in Centre C included tablets, digital cameras, tangible coding devices, an interactive screen, a light table and Bluetooth speakers. Both Rebecca and the educators used each device for educational purposes and encouraged children to interact with the devices and each other. The tablets were used for several purposes, such as capturing and magnifying images, watching videos, listening to songs, interactive games, educational applications such as Kodable, and watching Play School episodes on ABC Kids. In most cases, videos were used to reinforce the focus of the curriculum at that given point. The interactive screen was used similarly to the tablets, allowing more children to participate and engage with the larger screen. Kim used the interactive screen for research and activities, adding that it could be “integrated with maths activities, doing things that are more interactive, like games, and researching ideas like showing photos of different art projects, or trying to get real life examples”.

Laura and Kim both commented on the Beebot tangible coding devices. Importantly, the Beebots required specific educator skills to facilitate children’s learning. Laura stated “the ICT teacher in the school actually came into the room and taught me and the children how to use Beebots. Then I incorporated Beebots into various different parts of the curriculum”.

Digital technologies in Centre D included an interactive screen, tablets, laptops, and a digital clock. The interactive screen was set up permanently, used similarly to the iPad on a larger scale for showing videos, playing songs, facilitating activities such as Pilates, and showing photos of children engaged in activities outside of the centre. Serena commented on its capacity to be used for the whole class at once, as both teaching aid for discussion and showing digital content. She said, “we do have an interactive board in the room. We use that more as a discussion point. So, we may watch a story on there and the staff can pause it and ask questions”.

Tablets were used for language application, drawing, taking photos, playing music, and as a research tool. For example, Serena stated, “we use pretty much use iPads for most things”. Lastly, educators were provided with shared laptops for programming, and for use with the children when connected to the interactive screens. Serena said, “we play the laptop through the interactive screen”.

Layer 6. Children’s independent digital technology use

Observations indicated that children were given differing degrees of access and agency to interact with digital technologies. Table 7 summarises the digital technologies children engaged with across the four centres.

Table 7 Children’s independent digital technology use across the four EYS
Full size table

For Centre A, children were allowed access to tangible coding devices: Beebots and Cubetto, listening posts, a light table, and a recycled technologies provocation. However, the Beebots and Cubettos were only used when an educator was present. Children used listening posts, where Margaret said, “every room has headphones and a connector box so we can connect certain children to one form of musical storytelling”. Judy added the music sometimes facilitated active play”a few of our educators have bought the [Frozen] CDs so the children will ask for the music. They’ll dance, re-enact the story, and put dress ups on”. Children also listened to music and stories through the Bluetooth speaker. Stephanie stated that children “listen to a story or something on YouTube based on their interest”. A light studio had also been set up for the children to experiment with at allocated times. Finally, the learning environment featured recycled technologies, facilitating children’s engagement in imaginative play.

In Centre B, children accessed music and stories through a listening post. Kahurangi stated, “headphones can be plugged into the stereo and then they listen to whatever CD they choose”. The children also had a section of their learning environment set up with recycled keyboards, phones, and computer screens to promote imaginative play and to engage them with thinking and role play around digital technologies. According to Chelsea, the recycled technologies consisted of “old keyboards that we brought in. We did have a laptop at one point and we’ve had old telephones”.

The children in Centre C were given access to tangible coding devices: Beebots, a light table, tablets for interactive educational games and a recycled technologies provocation. Kim talked about the recycled technologies including “computers that no longer work to give exposure to that role play. The children also role play with different things that are maybe antiquated, you know, phones and cameras”. The stated aim of these resources was to provide children awareness and exposure to different types of digital technologies.

Centre D included a recycled technologies provocation. This, Letti, educator, indicated, encouraged imaginative digital play, and included old computers and keyboards. She added that the children were very interested in re-enacting what they saw adults do. For example, “I feel like they see us so frequently taking a picture and now they pretend to take pictures”.

Discussion

This study set out to examine digital technology integration in four representative EYCs, with a focus on young children’s independent use and agency. It was prefaced upon both the EYLF and NQF digital technology requirements informed by social constructivist calls for greater independence and agency to build young children’s foundational digital capacity (Heikkila & Mannila, 2018; Kewalramani & Veresov, 2022; Mantilla & Edwards, 2019; Rogoff, 2003; Tay, 2021). The researchers chose to examine all levels of digital integration in a centre as it was inferred that the overall encouragement and fostering of children’s agency with digital technologies would be reflective of each centres’ policy or unwritten position on digital technology, hence, the creation and use of the broad DTAF framework to guide the investigation.

The study’s principal finding was that while digital integration was evidenced across layers 3–5 associated with educator administrative, planning, and teaching use, there was less evidence of centre use in layers 1 and 2, or child-centred use in layer 6. Centres were yet to develop and publicly share digital technology beliefs though either visions, mission statements or digital policies and young children were offered limited agency over selected equipment largely to facilitate imaginative play. In relation to the EYLF statements on digital technology, the researchers did observe educators providing access to a variety of digital technologies and attempts to enhance children’s skills and capabilities, however, there was limited evidence of children using technologies to support their own investigations or problem solving. Similarly, in relation to the NQF Element 3.2.2, while educators were introducing a range of appropriate technologies, there was also evidence of future opportunities for fostering children’s independent use for experimentation. These findings potentially support the assertion from Woods et al. (2019) that children’s digital activities may not always be understood or valued in building digital competence, despite guidelines offered by ECA (2018). Overall, the study concluded that while considerable progress on digital integration has been made in terms of planning, teaching, and communication, there is more support required to ensure digital policy development and effective pedagogy relating to children’s independent use and agency.

The high levels of digital integration evidenced in layers 3, 4, and 5 did, however, suggest a willingness on behalf of the centre directors and educators to embrace digital technologies for communication, planning, researching, and teaching, and a degree of digital interaction with young children was occurring in terms of supervised shared use. This was evidenced by the range of digital technologies used, and the widespread use of communication platforms such as Storypark, Seesaw, and Xplor (White et al., 2021). Educators were engaging with digital technologies across multiple layers and where on-site professional development had been offered, such as in the use of Beebots, educators were more inclined to use them and offer children greater agency in their use (Murcia & Cross, 2022). Overall, educators appeared willing to allow children greater agency but appeared hesitant as to the amount of independence to offer, supporting earlier findings by Pila et al. (2022). Accordingly, issues relating to children’s independent digital technology usage may not be conditional on the willingness of educators to provide opportunities, but rather on their access to effective pedagogies and resources which guide and assist facilitation of children’s agency. Enhancing children’s independent use and agency therefore presents an opportunity for greater pedagogical support in this area, as noted by Pendergast et al. (2017). It also indicates a need for ongoing professional learning at the educator level (Nikolopoulou, 2021) and greater sector-wide dissemination of the EYLF and NQF requirements, including the intent behind them in terms of developing children’s foundational capabilities essential for successful navigation of the twenty-first century world.

Conclusion

Enacting the EYLF and NQF requirements for introducing appropriate technologies and pedagogies that enhance children’s learning, would in many cases require educators to further develop their own digital skills and capabilities. Arguably, this demands sector-wide action rather than relying only on individual centre-based or educator responses. In reaching this outcome and making recommendations, the researchers are aware of the limited nature of case study research. However, given the diversity of participating EYCs and the relative uniformity of findings, there is potential to generalise to the wider sector. Early year centre educators in this study intentionally used digital technologies in their daily routines and there was evidence that with professional learning and pedagogical assistance, educators were better positioned to foster children’s agency with digital technologies. However, a systematic effort is recommended for ensuring well targeted professional learning across the early years sector. Increasing the accessibility of digital pedagogies for all educators should enhance centre-based practice and contribute to children’s attainment of learning outcomes, as described in the EYLF and NQF. Furthermore, based on the findings from this study, there is a need and hence recommendation for the development of guiding principles and action planning frameworks to support the co-design of contextually relevant digital technology policies in EYCs; a process that not only includes educators but children and their families. The co-creation of relevant centre-based digital policies could offer greater guidance to educators aiming to develop and implement effective digital pedagogies into children’s learning environments. Co-designing digital technology policies at the EYC level may also assist in informing and dispelling wider societal hesitancy over digital practices with children (Zabatiero et al., 2018). In conclusion, empowering educators to integrate age-appropriate digital technologies into early childhood experiences and making them accessible to children, would ensure they had the tools needed for investigating, representing ideas, and communicating in the digital age.