1 Introduction

Digital competence has been promoted as an essential set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes for the twenty-first century, with a foundational framework called “DigComp” (Carretero et al., 2017) launched by the European Commission. According to the DigComp, digital competence refers to the “confident, critical and responsible use of, and engagement with, digital technologies for learning, at work, and for participation in society” (European Commission, 2019, p. 10). To make digital competence an official part of education, especially national compulsory education, many countries and organizations have been updating and releasing education policies and curricula to embed the development of digital competence into teachers’ professional guidelines and students’ learning experiences (Ferrari, 2012; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Since 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, teachers and students have been forced to participate in online education (Daniel, 2020; Su et al., 2022a). COVID-19 has thus accelerated the emphasis on developing teachers’ and students’ digital competence, the trend of which is seen to grow even after the pandemic. However, due to persistent inequalities in social and educational systems, teachers’ and students’ digital competence varies from person to person (Hammer et al., 2021; Howard et al., 2021). Against this background, it is a challenging but at the same time interesting opportunity to investigate and synthesize issues related to digital competence in the context of early childhood education (ECE)—a sector that tends to be neglected in this research area.

1.1 Definition of digital competence

As a key life skill identified and defined by the European Commission (2019), digital competence consists of “information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, media literacy, digital content creation (including programming), safety (including digital well-being and competences related to cybersecurity), intellectual property related questions, problem solving and critical thinking” (p. 10). Although being used interchangeably in some research (Madsen et al., 2018), digital competence as a concept is more commonly used in European countries, while “digital literacy” tends to be used in research conducted in English speaking countries (Spante et al., 2018). Digital literacy is the ability to use digital media to find, evaluate, and communicate information, combining technical and cognitive skills (American Library Association, 2017). The construct of digital competence is evidently closely related to the use of digital technologies.

Ilomäki et al. (2016) reviewed educational studies on digital competence and clarified on its definition as the ability to efficiently use digital technologies and to critically evaluate digital technologies, with the motivation to contribute to the digital culture. To further elaborate on what it means to be digitally competent for teachers, Skantz-Åberg et al. (2022) critically reviewed the conceptualizations of teachers’ digital competence in 18 publications. They identified seven key components of this construct, including technological competence, pedagogical competence, content knowledge, attitudes to technology use, cultural awareness, critical approach, and professional engagement. The first two sub-competencies were considered as the most prominent components in understanding teachers’ digital competence. However, the conceptualization of digital competence in ECE settings is still unclear due to a lack of efforts in systematically reviewing the relevant studies and research evidence. It is urgently necessary to address this knowledge gap to shed light on the policy and practice of digital competence development among early childhood teachers and students.

1.2 Previous reviews on digital competence

Previous reviews on digital competence have primarily focused on K-12 (e.g., Godaert et al., 2022; Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2014) and higher education settings (e.g., Sillat et al., 2021; Spante et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). However, there is a conspicuous absence of systematic reviews examining the conceptualization and assessment of digital competence in ECE contexts.

For instance, Spante et al. (2018) explored digital competence and digital literacy within higher education, while Zhao et al. (2021) investigated digital competence in higher education from 2015 to 2021. Both studies highlighted the need for further reforms and improvements in educational mechanisms and social environments. Sillat et al. (2021) specifically examined assessment methods for digital competence in higher education, revealing a dominance of self-assessment tools and a lack of guidance on proper assessment techniques. Esteve-Mon et al. (2020) and Pettersson (2018) conducted systematic reviews on university teachers’ digital competence and general educational contexts, respectively. Both studies emphasized the importance of considering contextual factors, such as organizational infrastructures and strategic leadership.

Focusing on student teachers, Røkenes and Krumsvik (2014) summarized eight approaches for fostering digital competence. Fernández-Batanero et al. (2020) investigated professional development in digital competence for in-service teachers, but only included K-12 and higher education contexts, revealing insufficient training and a focus on technical aspects rather than pedagogy. Godaert et al. (2022) specifically examined primary school students’ digital competence, finding that certain areas, such as “safe and responsible use” and “problem solving,” were underrepresented in assessments. Additionally, there was less emphasis on assessing students’ knowledge and attitudes compared to skills, with poor reporting of psychometric properties.

Despite these reviews offering various perspectives on digital competence, a comprehensive understanding of digital competence in the ECE context remains elusive. The lack of systematic reviews targeting ECE underlines the need for further research to address this gap and better understand the unique challenges and opportunities presented in ECE settings.

1.3 The present systematic review

This review aims to systematically explore the account of research on digital competence in ECE to (a) provide an understanding of the definition of digital competence in this specific context, (b) categorize the key dimensions of digital competence assessment in teachers and students in ECE, (c) identify key trends in the development and assessment of digital competence in ECE, and (d) highlight the limitations and recommendations of existing research on digital competence in ECE. This systematic review considers critical and urgent issues related to digital competence in ECE that might have been overlooked in other similar accounts of research on primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Accordingly, the following research questions will guide this systematic review:

  • RQ1: What are the different definitions of digital competence used in the studies included in the review, and how do they vary depending on their sources, such as research, policy documents, or both?

  • RQ2: What are the dimensions commonly used to evaluate and develop the digital competence of teachers, children, and parents in ECE settings?

  • RQ3: What were the major research purposes, research methodologies and outcomes in the studies of digital competence in ECE settings?

  • RQ4: What kinds of limitations and recommendations exist in research on digital competence in ECE settings?

2 Methods

2.1 Literature search

Four databases used for the literature search included Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, and ERIC. The search string used for this study was (KEY (“digital competence*” OR “digital abilit*” OR “digital skill*” OR “digital literac*”) AND KEY (“early childhood” OR “young child*” OR “preschool*” OR “kindergarten*” OR “pre-k*” OR “childcare” OR “child care” OR “day care” OR “parent”)). We have included parents in the search terms because parents play a critical role in supporting their children’s digital competence development, especially in the home environment (Li & Yang, 2023). Parental involvement and support are essential for children’s digital skills development, and parents are often the primary source of technology access and guidance for young children (Toh & Lim, 2021). All articles were accessed in December 2022. This review firstly included 294 articles that were obtained from various sources, including Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO, and ERIC, with 62, 94, 45, and 93 articles respectively, and only studies written in English were considered eligible.

2.2 The inclusion and exclusion criteria of research studies

This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2015). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set to further refine the 294 results obtained. Only those studies that satisfied the following criteria were considered for the analyses: (1) only empirical research papers were eligible for inclusion in the studies; (2) whose focus was digital competence-related topics; and (3) whose focus was ECE settings.

For the analysis, only empirical research papers that focused on digital competence in ECE settings were considered. Out of 294 articles retrieved, 220 were excluded based on their title and abstract, and 20 were duplicates. Further examination of the full-text excluded 15 non-research papers (e.g., Ilomäki et al., 2011), 11 studies not related to digital competence (e.g., Soldatova et al., 2021), and 4 studies not conducted in ECE settings (e.g., Pettersson, 2018). One study was removed for not being empirical (i.e., Ferrari et al., 2012). Ultimately, 23 peer-reviewed journal articles were included in the study, and Fig. 1 in the article provides an overview of the search procedure. Notably, we chose to focus on peer-reviewed journal articles as they typically undergo a more rigorous review process and are held to a higher standard of quality.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The Search Protocol Adopted in this Systematic Review

Full size image

2.3 Data coding and analysis

The coding scheme was modified from the coding method developed by Hwang and Wu (2014) and Zhao et al. (2021). The coding scheme of Hwang and Wu (2014) includes authors, year, and country. The aim is to understand which countries most frequently published studies on digital competence in ECE. To answer the four RQs, a coding scheme was developed based on Zhao et al’s (2021) article about a systematic literature review of digital competence in higher education research, including four elements: (1) digital competence defined; (2) the dimensions commonly used to assess digital competence; (3) the research purposes, research methods, and research outcomes in the digital competence studies; (4) limitations in digital competence research.

The included articles were coded by two researchers. The data was encoded using Microsoft Excel. First, coding reliability was determined with 10 randomly selected articles being coded separately. An overall inter-rater reliability was calculated as 0.91 with Cohen’s kappa analysis. After coding reliability was established, the remaining articles were coded independently by the two authors. The codes on which the researchers disagreed were discussed once the coding procedure was complete.

2.4 Data charting and collation

Appendix 1 provides summaries of the included articles, which cover the author/year, country, digital competence definition, sample groups, research purposes, research methods, outcomes, and limitations.

3 Findings and discussion

A total of 23 articles were included in this review (2012, n = 1; 2017, n = 1; 2019, n = 1; 2020, n = 8; 2021, n = 10; 2022, n = 2). The study revealed that numerous countries have started to focus on developing digital competence in ECE. Spain had the highest number of studies on this topic (n = 8), followed by Norway (n = 3).

3.1 RQ1: What are the different definitions of digital competence used in the studies included in the review, and how do they vary depending on their sources, such as research, policy documents, or both?

According to Spante et al. (2018), digital competence was defined with reference to (a) policy documents, (b) research and policy, and (c) research. As shown in Table 1, definitions of digital competence were derived and grouped according to three categories: 1) referencing research (n = 11); 2) referencing both international/local policy and research (n = 7); 3) referencing international/local policy (n = 5).

Table 1 Definitions of Digital Competence Across Studies
Full size table

3.1.1 Definitions drawn from policy document only

The definition of digital competence was mostly derived from the Europe Commission’s Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) and Educators Framework (DigCompEdu). Furthermore, it is found that some other local government policy and documents used when defining and introducing digital competence include the Swedish Educare and Teacher education programme (Masoumi, 2021), Swedish National Agency for Education (Lindeman et al., 2021), Israel National ICT program (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017), Framework Plan for the Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education (Hardersen & Guðmundsdóttir, 2012), ICT policies in the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands (Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020) and Ley Orgánica Spanish law (Trujillo Torres et al., 2020).

The definition of digital competence in ECE settings is often based on EU policies (Ferrari, 2013), as well as other policy and legislative documents highlighting its importance as a key competence of 21st-century citizenship (Alberola-Mulet et al., 2021; Trujillo Torres et al., 2020). Digital competence is also seen as a dimension of information communication technology (ICT) literacy, involving basic ICT skills such as retrieving, assessing, storing, producing, presenting, exchanging information, and communicating collaboratively through the internet (European Commission, 2016, 2009; Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020; Trujillo Torres et al., 2020). Romero-Tena et al. (2020) highlighted the six key elements of digital competence, including professional commitment, digital resources, digital pedagogy, evaluation and feedback, empowering students, and facilitating the digital competence of students, which can help identify pre-service teachers’ digital competence in terms of task complexity, autonomy, and cognitive domain, categorizing them as newcomers, explorers, integrators, experts, leaders, or pioneers.

One study (Hardersen & Guðmundsdóttir, 2012) explicitly used policy documents to define digital competence, using the Ministry of Education and Research’s (2011) framework plan to suggest that digital competence involves the knowledge children acquire through using digital devices in their contemporary culture, such as TV, DVD/Blu-ray, games consoles, computers, digital cameras, mobile telephones, and tablet computers. In contrast, both Hurwitz and Schmitt (2020) and Pons-Salvador et al. (2022) implicitly refer to digital competence as the competency to navigate websites and use the internet, without citing any legislative documents.

3.1.2 Definitions drawn from research only

Medina-García et al. (2021) proposed a conceptual model for digital inclusive literacy based on research, defining it as knowledge of disability and information communication technology that is reflected in five dimensions: knowledge about motor, hearing, cognitive, visual, and accessibility needs. Other articles that only used research to define digital competence include Aarsand (2019), who used guided participation and professional vision theories to define it as a way to create and sustain socially organized ways of knowing, seeing, and acting upon the world, and Pöntinen and Räty-Záborszky (2020), who identified it as an essential skill for lifelong learning based on the work of Ferrari (2012), and extending the understanding of children’s engagement (Ilomäki et al., 2016). Ilomäki et al. (2016) framed the pedagogical definition of digital competence, which involves learning technical skills and practices, applying digital technology, conceptualizing digital technology phenomena, and being motivated to participate in digital culture. Vogt and Hollenstein (2021), referencing Van Laar et al. (2017) and Turja et al. (2009), defined digital competence as 21st-century skills that allow children to explore and experience technology as active agents in the roles of producer/designer, maintainer, and consumer for selecting and using technology in everyday life.

Two articles have defined digital competence by drawing on socio-cultural theory, ecological system theory, and parental mediation theory to emphasize the potential impact of a child’s home environment and their parents’ digital skills on their access to technology and development of digital competence. Hurwitz and Schmitt (2020) have used socio-cultural and ecological systems theories to explore how parental digital skills can provide children with technology access, socialize them, and scaffold their learning of internet use. Similarly, Pons-Salvador et al. (2022) have adapted Livingstone et al.'s (2017) Parental mediation theory to emphasize the importance of parental involvement and strategies in mediating children’s online behavior, such as active mediation, restrictive mediation, and technical mediation, to protect children from internet risks.

3.1.3 Definitions drawn from both policy and research

Seven out of twenty-three included articles used both policy documents and research to define digital competence. Alberola-Mulet et al. (2021) recognised international frameworks and legislative policies describing digital competence as one of the core competencies for the twenty-first century and the specific role of technology in these learning processes (Voogt et al, 2013). Reference with The European Commission (2018), digital competence entails the confident, critical, and responsible use of digital technologies for learning, work, leisure and participation in society (Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, 2021).

Among these seven articles, four are expanded from the backbone of international or local educational policy where the Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) idea of Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) is presented as a research framework to define digital competence particularly for teachers. Digital competence is further conceptualized as teachers’ abilities, attitudes, beliefs in the context of technology integration (Alberola-Mulet et al., 2021; Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017; Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, 2021; Masoumi, 2021). TPACK emphasizes the importance of teachers making connections between technological, pedagogical, and content types of knowledge for optimizing the integration of technology tools to enhance teaching and learning pedagogy (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017) as well as to introduce digital competence to students in the classroom (Alberola-Mulet et al., 2021).

Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017) elaborated on the digital competence definition with the frame of Diffusion of Innovation model presented by Roger (2010). The educational vision and leadership of the school culture become crucial as their readiness is an important component in integration of technological tools and pedagogical methods. To empower teachers with digital competence, school principals are responsible for encouraging 1) digital design as a parameter of teacher professional knowledge, 2) pedagogical data exchange within schools and digital communication beyond school boundaries as well as 3) collaborative teaching and learning as components of technological integration (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017).

On the other hand, Lindeman et al. (2021) identified the local school contextual factors with the consideration of Domestication theory that digital competence connects to the extent to which teachers have integrated the technological tools. The study with reference to the work of Engen (2019) indicated that digital competence is not only hands-on skills but also the actual implementation by teachers. It helps to expand the understanding of digital competence where it refers to the ability for teachers to know when, how and why digital tools should be used, but also when they are not to be used (Lindeman et al., 2021).

Maureen et al. (2020) have defined digital competence by drawing on UNESCO (2005) documents to describe digital competence as a complex set of skills that involves the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, and communicate texts in written, printed, and digital formats, with supporting research. They also reference the works of Ng (2015) and Neumann et al. (2017) to argue that digital competence encompasses cognitive, technical, and social-emotional aspects of children’s development, including knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable them to competently operate digital technologies and their functional features.

Kalabina and Progackaya (2021) involved two groups of participants which are children and their parents with the use of both policy and research to define digital competence. With reference to policy documents such as EU Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp) (Ferrari, 2013) as well as the research studies of Soldatova et al. (2013) and Ilomäki et al. (2016), digital competence refers to the readiness of student to apply digital technologies efficiently and safely in everyday life. Nonetheless, these studies highlight the social and emotional aspects of using and comprehending digital devices as the foundation for digital competence. The inclusion of a motivational component in the essence of the concept, which determines its psychological and pedagogical orientation, is a fundamental difference between digital competence and digital literacy.

3.2 RQ2: What are the dimensions commonly used to evaluate the digital competence of teachers, children, and parents?

The participants of the included articles are mainly pre-service teachers and teachers (n = 10). The corresponding dimensions for evaluating children’s (n = 8) and parents’ (n = 5) digital competence is shown in Table 2. The dimensions commonly used to assess the digital competence of teachers, children, and parents are reflected in the data collection instruments reported in the selected articles.

Table 2 Dimensions for Evaluating Digital Competence
Full size table

3.2.1 Teachers

The DigComp model and TPACK theory are the two major dimensions used for evaluating teachers’ digital competence. Four out of ten articles are designed based on the dimensions established by the DigComp model. The DigComp is established to identify European Union citizens’ digital competence and to serve as a tool to support digital competence (Romero-Tena et al., 2020), and develop evaluation of digital competence with the DigCompEdu) which includes six dimensions, including: (1) technological literacy, (2) search and treatment of information, (3) critical thinking, (4) communication and collaboration, (5) digital citizenship, and (6) creativity and innovation. Galindo-Domínguez and Bezanilla (2021) followed the five dimensions based on the Common European Framework for Teaching Digital Competence (MCECD) which comprises information, communication, content creation, safety and problem solving. In Trujillo Torres et al. (2020)’s study, the DIGCOMP Project (Digital Competence) is proposed for the achievement of the Digital Teaching Competence (Ferrari, 2013). Urrea-Solano et al. (2021) adapted the four dimensions in digital competencies for the pedagogical field based on the sustainability dimension presented by Sanchez et al. (2017). These four dimensions in evaluation are general perspective, environmental, social dimension, and economic dimension of e-sustainability.

On the other hand, four articles (i.e., Alberola-Mulet et al., 2021; Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017; Galindo-Domínguez & Bezanilla, 2021; Masoumi, 2021) were designed by identifying the multiple intersection among the three recognised dimensions of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge in the TPACK model proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006). For example, Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017) established the dimensions of content and pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge of TPACK. Galindo-Domínguez and Bezanilla (2021) followed particularly the technological pedagogical content of TPACK, which reflects the urgency to foster the professional training of teachers through the interaction of all its dimensions in instrumental, curricular, pragmatic, designing, evaluating, organizing, attitudinal aspects. Similarly, Alberola-Mulet et al. (2021) related the dimension of teachers’ perceptions of the importance of digital educational resources to TPACK competencies, indicating that teachers with high TPACK competencies support integrating digital technological resources in the classroom, which further allows professionals to overcome intrinsic barriers.

3.2.2 Children

Different dimensions with various theoretical frameworks evaluating children’s digital competence are noticed. These studies were published on the basis of dimensions developed from technological, cognitive, and ethical levels (Pöntinen & Räty-Záborszky, 2020) to create inputs from eight dimensions of a digital transformative initiative (Vogt & Hollenstein, 2021), while others established the evaluation in cognitive and social-emotional dimensions (Maureen et al., 2020) and involved understanding, using, and acting in visual, tactile and audio competence dimensions (Aarsand, 2019).

For example, Pöntinen and Räty-Záborszky (2020) evaluated children’s digital competence based on the essential skills for lifelong learning (Ferrari, 2012) and the emphasis on the coexistence dimension of technological, cognitive and ethical levels proposed by Ilomäki et al. (2016). It evaluates and includes 1) learning and using technical skills and practices, 2) applying and engaging digital technology, and 3) ethical considerations related to using the Internet and digital devices safely. Vogt and Hollenstein (2021) created input from eight dimensions based on the World Economic Forum and Accenture’s (2017) digital transformative initiative, which are IT Center, robotics, 3D printer, autonomous vehicles, internet of things, police and tracking, online shop, and food laboratory.

On the other hand, Maureen et al. (2020) established the evaluation with the integration of digital competence within the text format in written, printed, and digital dimensions based on UNESCO (2018), as well as the cognitive (i.e., critical thinking and multi-modality) and social-emotional dimensions (i.e., communication and social skills) of digital competence proposed by NAEYC and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media (NAEYC 2012).

3.2.3 Parents

It is important to understand the common dimensions used for understanding parents’ digital competence, their attitude toward their children’s use of the Internet and digitally related experiences as parental digital competence predicts children’s use of the Internet and their digital skills development. As the Internet and the use of technology carry risks to children, these studies are associated with various theoretical frameworks from parental guide use (Hardersen & Gumundsdóttir, 2012), parental mediation (Pons-Salvador et al., 2022), and the TPACK model (Kalabina & Progackaya, 2021).

Three studies have examined the computer knowledge, use, and digital competence of parents and their children in relation to the medium-related skills that support content-related skills, which include operational skills such as saving files and bookmarking websites, and formal skills such as navigating websites (Calvert et al., 2005; Hurwitz & Schmitt, 2020; Livingstone & Helsper, 2010). In contrast, Kalabina and Progackaya (2021) have explored the content knowledge dimension of the TPACK theory, focusing on the content of internet use by parents and children. They identify the characteristics of digital technology perception, including the advantages and risks children face in the online environment, areas of knowledge about technologies such as children’s definitions of the Internet, motivation for using technologies, and ideas about safe behavior when parents and children use technologies.

3.3 RQ3: What were the major research purposes, research methodologies and outcomes in the studies of digital competence in the ECE settings?

3.3.1 Research purposes

Five research purposes are identified to investigate (1) the impact of digital competence on student or teacher achievement (n = 10), (2) participant perceptions toward the teaching and learning of digital competence, use of the Internet, related technologies integration and policy (n = 7), (3) pedagogy assessment involved in teaching digital competence (n = 4), (4) factors influencing digital skills development (n = 1), and (5) the psychometric properties of digital competence instruments (n = 1). Specific research purposes for each study are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Research Purposes Among the Studies Reviewed
Full size table

Pre-service teachers and teacher perceptions were evaluated in various ways. For example, Alberola-Mulet et al. (2021) investigated the perception of teachers about the role of digital educational resources in educational practices while Trujillo Torres et al. (2020) examined teachers’ perceptions and their information literacy skills development. Lindeman et al. (2021) attempted to comprehend teachers' experiences with digital tools and the reasons they are unable to use them. Masoumi (2021) investigated pre-service teachers' perceptions and readiness to use information and communication technologies in their future teaching, as well as their level of willingness and agreement to work with government educational policy (Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020).

On the other hand, the purposes of Galindo-Domnguez and Bezanilla (2021) and Urrea-Solano et al. (2021) were to improve curriculum design and teacher training programs for pre-service teachers' digital competence development. Galindo-Domnguez and Bezanilla (2021) used the DigComp Model to assess pre-service teachers’ digital competence in the dimensions of content creation, information, communication, safety, and problem solving. Urrea-Solano et al. (2021) identified and recognize differences in e-sustainable digital competences among pre-service teachers in Early Childhood Education (BDECE) and Primary Education (BDPE) in order to improve design didactic proposals to encourage the acquisition of these competencies among future teachers at both stages for sustainability development reasons.

For those studies involving children (Table 3), Maureen et al. (2020) investigated how a structured storytelling and digital storytelling pedagogical approach affected the development of literacy of children and yielded a large gain in digital skills. Similarly, Vogt and Hollenstein (2021) investigated whether digital competence is acquired through pretend play pedagogy for an understanding of digital transformation in a playful way in early childhood, while Pöntinen and Räty-Záborszky (2020) investigated how pedagogical support can improve students’ digital skills in the first two years of primary school. On the other hand, Aarsand (2019) investigated children’s digital practices of guided categorization activities in identifying geometric shapes and identifying feelings and thoughts, how digital tools are used, how children become competent users of these tools and interact with their peers.

Among those studies involving parents or families (Table 3), Hardersen and Gumundsdóttir (2012) investigated what type of digital competence children bring to kindergartens. Findings revealed that the youngest typically used traditional devices such as TV and DVD/Blu-ray players while the older children have had exposure to a variety of digital devices. Tablet computers were the common and more widespread used across all age groups, which helps develop professional training programs for teachers, strengthen pedagogical content, and improve teaching quality. Hurwitz and Schmitt (2020) investigated the relationship between children’s early internet use, digital skills, and predicted academic performance in middle childhood. In terms of the perception of parents toward the children’s use of internet, Pons-Salvador et al. (2022) and Kalabina and Progackaya (2021) were investigated the parents’ belief about their children’s Internet use, the benefits and dangers of the Internet, and their digital competence in guiding and supervising their children's Internet use. Their purpose of evaluation is to determine whether parents have the necessary knowledge about Internet use to activate these filters or controls, and adequate digital competence to protect children from Internet risks, as well as allow children to acquire digital competence in a safely online environment.

3.3.2 Research methodologies

As shown in Table 4, most researchers used quantitative (n = 12), followed by qualitative (n = 9), to investigate digital competence in ECE settings. Only two articles used mixed methods. In terms of data collection instruments for quantitative methodologies, most studies used questionnaires (n = 11), followed by assessment tests (n = 1). In qualitative methodologies, most studies used interviews (n = 5), followed by observations and video analysis (n = 4). In mixed-methods studies, the data collection instruments include questionnaires and interviews.

Table 4 Research Methodologies Used in the Studies
Full size table

For those studies involving teachers, six, three and one articles used quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, respectively. The most common data collection instruments are questionnaires and surveys (n = 7), followed by interviews and focus groups (n = 4).

Questionnaires were used in the design of all six quantitative research studies to investigate factors influencing digital technologies, teachers’ perception of digital skills development and assess perceived digital competence of teachers, as well as their knowledge and practice in the classroom. Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017) investigated factors influencing ICT integration in the classroom for digital skills development by assessing 1) general use, attitudes, and competences, 2) collaboration and teamwork measures, and 3) visibility and e-communication measures. On the other hand, Romero-Tena et al. (2020) assessed perceived digital competence of teachers in six areas: technological literacy, search and treatment of information, critical thinking, communication and collaboration, digital citizenship and creativity and innovation. Similarly, Trujillo Torres et al. (2020) used 91 questionnaire items with four Likert scales to evaluate the development of teachers’ digital skills in the following areas: 1) Information navigation, search, and filtering, 2) Information evaluation, and 3) Storage and retrieval of information. To examine children’s digital competence, Maureen et al. (2020) used the early literacy test to assessed the early digital competence based on the scoring rubric for Early Digital Literacy Assessment in cognitive and social–emotional dimensions. For those involving parents/families, questionnaires and surveys are frequently used to investigate parents’ attitudes toward their children’s use of technology. Hardersen and Gumundsdóttir (2012) designed a series of digital competence surveys to map the digital usage patterns of young children in their free time and at kindergartens. Pons-Salvador et al. (2022) used questionnaires to investigate parents' perceptions of their children's internet use in areas such as internet use habits, beliefs about their children's Internet use, and knowledge and behaviors reported in relation to their children’s internet use. Similarly, Kalabina and Progackaya (2021) investigated parental control strategies over their children's use of technology.

Three studies used qualitative methods in included studies. All qualitative data are collected through interviews and focus groups to deepen understanding of the perception, readiness and experience of pre-service teachers during their training and teachers in practice as well the role of digital educational resources in ECE settings. Masoumi (2021) conducted a focus group study with pre-service teachers to better understand their readiness to use digital technologies and tools in their future teaching and how this process is conducted in professional training programs. On the other hand, Lindeman et al. (2021) conducted interviews to reveal in-service teachers' understanding of the domestication of digital technology in ECE settings. Alternatively, Alberola-Mulet et al. (2021) designed four interview questions in order to better understand the role of digital educational resources as perceived by thirty-one teachers in early childhood and primary schools. To examine children’s digital competence, Aarsand (2019), for example, used observations to assess students' use of digital tools. The items include 1) in categorization activities; 2) in geometrical shape categorization; 3) in visual articulation; and 4) in categorizing thoughts and feelings. Pöntinen and Räty-Záborszky (2020) used observations to understand digital competence in technical problem solving, students’ perceptions and feelings about digital competence and practices, and their engagement in learning. Vogt and Hollenstein (2021) aimed to evaluate the acquisition of digital competencies and the effectiveness of the pretend play pedagogy by observing how students transmit data between devices, uninstall and install, program and develop processes when interacting with digital technology. It assesses digital competence in seven dimensions – technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities.

One article used mixed methods for data collection, analysis, and interpretation, which includes questionnaires and interviews, to broaden the scope of the information sought about digital competence training for teachers (Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020). In Pérez-Jorge et al. (2020), there are two sample groups totalling 114 teachers. One group of 110 teachers completes a self-reported questionnaire, while another group of 4 teachers interviewed for triangulation purposes. For those involving parents/families, Kalabina and Progackaya (2021) used mixed methods (i.e., questionnaires and interviews) to determine the content of digital competence and understand the parental control strategies of older preschool students. The questionnaire developed by the Foundation for Internet Development for all-Russian study is adopted. The interview questions were used to further investigate parental control strategies over their children’s use of technology.

3.3.3 Research outcomes

As shown in Table 5, the research outcomes include the achievement of digital competence, the positive and negative perceptions, effectiveness of pedagogical strategy, and contributing factors to the development of digital competence.

Table 5 Research Outcomes Across Studies
Full size table

Four articles have examined the digital competence achievement of teachers, with three reporting low digital competence achievement among in-service teachers and one reporting medium digital competence achievement among pre-service teachers. Medina-Garcia et al. (2021) reported that teachers have low ICT motivation, Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017) found that they have low digital content creation ability, and Lindeman et al. (2021) noted a lack of digital competence among in-service teachers. In contrast, Galindo-Domnguez and Bezanilla (2021) found that pre-service teachers have a medium level of digital competence in the dimensions of information, communication, safety, and problem solving, but experience some difficulties in the dimension of content creation. However, upon completing a university course or training program, teachers’ digital competence significantly improves.

In terms of positive and negative perceptions, Alberola-Mulet et al. (2021) revealed that teachers perceived positively the integration of digital educational resources (DER) and ICT into the classroom for digital competence. There is, however, no agreement among teachers on how to properly integrate them in education. Although teachers’ information skills were adequate (Trujillo Torres et al., 2020), more professional training in using digital tools with children is still required (Lindeman et al, 2021) since pre-service teachers believe they have few opportunities to develop their digital competence and are not adequately prepared to integrate ICT (Masoumi, 2021).

In terms of contributing factors to digital skills development, teachers have a strong belief that ICT will improve their teaching practices (Pérez-Jorge et al., 2020) and increase their motivation to develop digital competence (Medina-Garca et al., 2021). Professional development is instrumental in improving their self-perception of digital competence (Romero-Tena et al., 2020).

Seven articles stated that children’s achievement of digital competence was improved, while the pedagogical use of pretend play, storytelling, and digital storytelling in the development of digital competence in ECE settings are found to be effective (Table 5).

In terms of children’s achievement, children can achieve a higher cognitive level in general. Aarsand (2019) revealed that children were successful in creating a visual representation using the digital camera and developing professional vision through social activities (Aarsand, 2019). The study of Pöntinen and Räty-Záborszky (2020) indicated that all students were engaged in using digital technology for learning. Vogt and Hollenstein (2021) reported that children demonstrated skills required during the pretend play activities. They acquired digital competences such as technical and digital skills, creativity, communication, collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving. In the pretend play sequence, children were required to communicate with the teacher as a customer, assist in responding to the customer’s needs, and act as the App’s creator.

From a pedagogical standpoint, the strategy of pretend play is found to be an effective approach to learning about digital transformation (Vogt & Hollenstein, 2021). Furthermore, Maureen et al. (2020) showed that students’ digital skills development was stronger in experimental conditions with story and digital storytelling activities than in control conditions (i.e. regular literacy development activities). Findings provide empirical evidence that structured storytelling and digital story telling conditions, both oral and digital, improved children’s literacy and digital competence significantly.

Parents reported that positive digital competence achievement and positive perceptions of their children’s use of digital technology (Table 5). In terms of digital competence achievement, the use of digital devices promotes the development of their children (Hardersen & Gumundsdóttir, 2012). Based on Kalabina and Progackaya (2021), children gain basic knowledge of how to use digital devices such as smartphones and tablets. The amount of time spent on the internet has been found to have a direct relationship with children’s digital skills development, with early childhood digital skills predicting middle childhood digital skills and being significantly related to school performance (Hurwitz & Schmitt, 2020).

In terms of perception, parents are mostly positive about their children’s use of digital device and Internet impact on their children’s development of digital competence (Hardersen & Guðmundsdóttir, 2012; Hurwitz & Schmitt, 2020; Pons-Salvador et al., 2022). For instance, Pons-Salvador et al. (2022) found that parents’ digital competence is positively related to their educational level. Furthermore, parents with higher levels of digital competence are more likely to encourage their children to use the Internet at a younger age, allowing them to take advantage of the opportunities that the Internet provides. However, factors other than parental control may influence access to digital devices and the Internet (Hardersen & Guðmundsdóttir, 2012). More than 35% of parents reported their child has never used a computer, and 38% reported their child has never used a touch-sensitive screen. A sizable number of children do not have access to the digital universe, implying the possibility of a digital divide. Early access to digital devices is a prerequisite for the development of digital competence in kindergarten (Hardersen & Gumundsdóttir, 2012) that cannot be ignored.

3.4 RQ4: What kinds of limitations and recommendations exist in research on digital competence in ECE?

As indicated in Table 6, the two major limitations in research on digital competence in ECE settings are small sample sizes (n = 9) and assessment methods (n = 6). For better triangulation of results, it is recommended to reach a larger sample size and use mixed methods as well as more assessing tools. The details of recommendations are also discussed in this section.

Table 6 Research Limitations and Recommendations
Full size table

3.4.1 Teachers

First, a small sample size (n = 7) was identified as a common limitation, followed by assessment methods (n = 3) that may affect generalizability. Results of many studies are applied to a small population, such as 12 teachers (Lindeman et al., 2021); participants in education faculty (Romero-Tena et al., 2020); and one school (Alberola-Mulet et al., 2021; Urrea-Solano et al., 2021). Others state that limitations include generation bias (Hurwitz & Schmitt, 2020), where teachers are confused about “digital resources” and “new technologies” terminologies, and selection bias (Lindeman et al., 2021) due to the small sample size. Furthermore, studies are carried out in specific contexts, such as Spain (Medina-García et al., 2021) while partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLSE-SEM) is used to maximize the explained variance of dependent variables.

Regarding the limitation of assessment methods, a single data collection instrument is used (n = 3). For example, to assess teacher digital competence, a subjective perception-based questionnaire is used (Urrea-Solano et al, 2021; Galindo-Domnguez & Bezanilla, 2021), whereas an exclusively quantitative questionnaire is used to investigate the perceived components of school ICT culture (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017).

To address the limitations of the small sample size and assessment methods. A few recommendations are made. To collect data from participants with a variety of characteristics in different schools (e.g. teachers age) (Alberola-Mulet et al., 2021), as well as different educational levels (Trujillo Torres et al., 2020; Medina-Garcia et al., 2021), a larger and more extensive sample may be used. A comparative study to other contexts (Urrea-Solano et al., 2021) and at the European level is suggested to serve as a horizon for implementation (Medina-Garcia et al., 2021).

It is also recommended that mixed methods and more assessing tools can be used to triangulate for high quality results (Galindo-Domnguez & Bezanilla, 2021; Urrea-Solano et al., 2021). Alberola-Mulet et al. (2021) proposed using quantitative methods to verify the age and gender differences associated with the integration of digital educational resources / ICT into the classroom, whereas Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017) proposed using qualitative methods in the future, such as interviews, to gain a deeper understanding of school principals’ beliefs underlying pedagogical decisions and behaviors, as well as assessing actual pedagogical outcomes rather than perceived outcomes.

Furthermore, a few areas such as 1) digital competence training strategy for teachers with low digital skills (Alberola-Mulet et al., 2021); 2) the causal relationship between digital competence and a variety of psychological constructs of interest (such as students' autonomy, self-efficacy, or learning strategies) (Galindo-Domnguez & Bezanilla, 2021); and 3) the area of play-based learning by using digital tools in ECE may be worth-exploring (Lindeman et al., 2021).

3.4.2 Children

The most significant limitation is related to assessment methods (n = 2), followed by small sample size (n = 1). According to Maureen et al. (2020), the early digital competence measures are researcher-self-developed measurement instruments. It is also limited by the fact that the experimenter led the experimental group (i.e., storytelling activities), whereas the control group (i.e., regular activities) was led by the classroom teacher. In contrast, the observing time of learning processes for children’s digital competence assessment is limited in Vogt and Hollenstein (2021) due to the nature of pretend play. Furthermore, it uses video analysis as a single data collection and evaluation method, with no triangulation or comparison to other methods.

The small sample size appears to be another limitation in Pöntinen and Räty-Záborszky’s (2020) study. It was conducted in one classroom with twenty-one students using observations, field notes, interviews with teachers, and student work; however, it did not capture students’ voices and ideas.

Conducting studies in diverse educational settings and cultures is strongly advised (Pöntinen & Räty-Záborszky, 2020). Researchers recommend that future studies compare children's motivation and engagement in digital and traditional storytelling activities for improving their digital competence (Maureen et al., 2020), investigated students’ levels of focus regarding their development of digital competence, and examine parents’ perspectives on cooperation between home and school regarding their children’s digital skills development (Pöntinen & Räty-Záborszky, 2020).

3.4.3 Parents

The common limitation is small sample sizes (n = 2), followed by the assessment method (n = 1). In terms of small sample size, Hurwitz and Schmitt (2020) recruited 101 parents with children aged 5 as participants for their 6-year longitudinal and cross-sectional study. The sample is relatively small and selective, which hinder the detection of more complex hypotheses (e.g., a curvilinear relation between early childhood Internet use and middle childhood academic performance). Similarly, Kalabina and Progackaya (2021) recruited 43 parents with 41 children aged 5–7. The small sample size, their social-stratification characteristics and their siblings are not considered in the study that make generalization of the results limited.

In terms of assessment methods, Hurwitz and Schmitt (2020) also noticed the limitation in assessment method. The findings are based on assessing the operational digital skills but not digital communication skills or content-related digital skills. It did not test children’s digital competence directly at either time point but rather relied on parent reports, indicating a potential reporting bias about parents’ and children’s perceived digital skills.

Researchers recommend that the following areas to be investigated further: 1) parents’ perceptions of their children’s use of digital devices, how it affects their development, and whether parental guidance and permission are required for children's accessibility (Hardersen & Gumundsdóttir, 2012), 2) the relationship between early operational skills and later content-related digital skills; whether a specific set of online behaviors causes early differences in digital skill; a direct observational research to clarify the impact of online activities on digital competence development (Hurwitz & Schmitt, 2020), 3) parents’ digital competence in relation to socio-economic level (Pons-Salvador et al., 2022), and 4) compare the features of digital competence of preschoolers relative to the educational and economic status, and composition of the family such as siblings (Kalabina & Progackaya, 2021).

4 Conclusion and direction for future studies

This study analyzed peer-reviewed journal papers on digital competence from 2012 to 2022. The study offers an overview of digital competence in ECE, including its definition, assessment dimensions, research purposes, methods, outcomes, and limitations. Researchers can gain insights into digital competence in ECE through this review.

The main purposes of this line of research were improving children and teacher achievement. However, only one article focuses on validation of instruments (Medina-García et al., 2021). Future research could consider more research conducted in validation of instruments of digital competence in ECE studies since this limitation was mentioned in several studies.

The research outcomes were digital competence achievement, the positive and negative perceptions, effectiveness of pedagogical strategy, and contributing factors to the development of digital competence in terms of children, parents, and teachers. In terms of children, we found that four articles mentioned that children’s digital competence was improved. Some studies showed that using pretend play, storytelling, and digital storytelling in the development of digital competence was effective. Future research could design some storytelling and play activities for children in terms of enhancing their digital competence.

The most limitations were small sample sizes and assessment methods. Two studies recommended more assessment tools should be used to triangulate data for high quality results (Galindo-Domnguez & Bezanilla, 2021; Urrea-Solano et al., 2021). Future research should use a wider variety of assessment methods to assess teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of digital competence in ECE and increased sample sizes of the participants in the experiment research.

Several recommendations can proposed for future studies. In terms of research on children, one study mentioned that the area of play-based learning by using digital tools in ECE may be worth-exploring (Lindeman et al., 2021). Aranda et al. (2022) introduced the digital technology (i.e., Bee-Bot) into play-based learning in ECE. In terms of teachers, Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2017) suggested that future researchers could consider using qualitative methods (i.e., interviews) to gain a deeper understanding of school principals' beliefs underlying pedagogical decisions and behaviors. In terms of parents, some scholars recommend that future researchers could conduct studies on parents’ digital competence in relation to socio-economic level (Pons-Salvador et al., 2022). In fact, many researchers already proved that socio-economic level affects children’s learning (Su et al., 2022a, b); however, no studies investigated the relationships between parents’ digital competence and socioeconomic status.

Three limitations should be noted in interpreting the findings of this systematic review. To begin with, only articles that were written in English were reviewed. Second, the number of reviewed studies is relatively small. Third, it is noted that most included studies were conducted in developed countries/regions (e.g., Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and USA), implying that the results may not be extrapolated to developing countries/regions, especially those in the Global South.