Abstract

Education Transformation in the Industrial Revolution 4.0 era demands early‑childhood teachers to possess pedagogical competencies that are not only theoretical but also innovative, creative, and contextual. These competencies are essential for supporting the holistic development of young children, encompassing cognitive, social, emotional, and motor dimensions. This study aimed to develop and validate a Pedagogical Competency Model 4.0, consisting of four main constructs: learning innovation, creativity, social interaction, and pedagogical implementation. This study employed a quantitative approach to test a theoretical model using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and group invariance testing to assess the validity and reliability of the theoretical constructs of the Early Childhood Education Teacher Competency Model 4.0. The participants were 351 teachers recruited from various schools across Indonesia. The competency model was evaluated using an instrument administered on a four‑point Likert scale. The results indicated that the model exhibited excellent fit with all goodness-of-fit indices meeting acceptable thresholds. All constructs demonstrated strong convergent validity, discriminant validity, and high reliability. The novelty of this study lies in the development of a Pedagogical Competency 4.0 model that integratively combines four essential elements for early childhood education learning that are relevant in the digital era. This model can serve as both a conceptual framework and a measurement instrument for the comprehensive development and evaluation of teachers’ competencies. Its practical implications include contributions to policies aimed at improving Early Childhood Education teacher quality, competency-based training programs, and the design of curricula that are responsive to the challenges of 21st-century education. 

Keywords

References

• Akyol, T. (2025). The effect of participatory pedagogy and children’s participation training on early childhood teachers' views on children’s participation. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(4), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202533781
• Beneventi, P. (2024). Considerations on cyber behavior and mass technology in modern society. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8228-5
• Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas–Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138, 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013
• Burnard, P., & Dragovic, T. (2015). Collaborative creativity in instrumental group music learning as a site for enhancing pupil wellbeing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45, 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2014.934204
• Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421
• Campbell, C., Speldewinde, C., Howitt, C., & Macdonald, A. (2018). STEM practice in the early years. Creative Education, 9, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.91002
• Chai, C., Koh, J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16, 31–51.
• Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
• Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas. Routledge.
• Craft, A. (2010). Creativity and education futures. Trentham Books.
• Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Chappell, K. (2007). Teacher stance in creative learning: A study of progression. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2007.09.003
• Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24, 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
• Dong, C., & Xu, Q. (2021). Pre-service early childhood teachers’ attitudes and intentions: Young children’s use of ICT. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 42, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2020.1726843
• Edwards, S. (2017). Play-based learning and intentional teaching: Forever different? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.42.2.01
• Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
• Fleer, M. (2013). Theorising play in the early years. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107282131
• Fleer, M. (2019). Digitally amplified practices: Beyond binaries and towards a profile of multiple digital coadjuvants. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 26, 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2019.1646289
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Gallego, P. L., & Caingcoy, M. E. (2021). Variance in multidimensional competencies and professional development needs of kindergarten teachers. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 2(2), 101461. https://doi.org/10.33902/IJODS.2021271213
• Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
• Hatzigianni, M. (2018). Transforming early childhood experiences with digital technologies. Global Studies of Childhood, 8, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610617734987
• Kontkanen, S., Pöntinen, S., Kewalramani, S., Veresov, N., & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2023). Children’s digital competence in early childhood education: A comparative analysis of curricula. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19, em2215. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12798
• Lee, J., Fu, L., Hu, H., Wang, C., Chung, E., Choi, S., Choi, C., Lee, S., Lui, I. D., & Yoo, M. S. (2025). The development and validation of the multidimensional assessment of teacher social-emotional competence (MATSEC) in East Asian school contexts. Social and Emotional Learning Research, Practice, and Policy, 5, 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sel.2025.100093
• Lewis, K. L., Kervin, L. K., Verenikina, I., & Howard, S. J. (2024). Young children’s at-home digital experiences and interactions: An ethnographic study. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1392379. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1392379
• Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029321
• Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: The future of education for the 21st century. UCL Institute of Education Press.
• Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new classification. Early Years, 36, 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1167675
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
• Mondi, C. F. (2025). Supporting social and emotional learning through infant and early childhood mental health consultation. Social and Emotional Learning Research, Practice, and Policy, 5, 100084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sel.2025.100084
• Nikolopoulou, K. (2021). Mobile devices in early childhood education: Teachers’ views on benefits and barriers. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 3279–3292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10400-3
• OECD. (2020). Education at a glance 2020: OECD indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en
• Pantić, N., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher competencies as a basis for teacher education: Views of Serbian teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 694–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.005
• Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2021). Teaching mathematics with mobile devices and the Realistic Mathematical Education (RME) approach in kindergarten. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.25082/amler.2021.01.002
• Pedró, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. UNESCO.
• Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) manual: Pre-K. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
• Rogoff, B., Dahl, A., & Callanan, M. (2018). The importance of understanding children’s lived experience. Developmental Review, 50, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.006
• Schleicher, A. (2020). Education at a glance 2020: OECD indicators. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en
• Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.
• Sheridan, S., Giota, J., Han, Y.-M., & Kwon, J.-Y. (2009). A cross-cultural study of preschool quality in South Korea and Sweden: ECERS evaluations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.03.004
• Tang, K.-Y., Chang, C.-Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2023). Trends in artificial intelligence-supported e-learning: A systematic review and co-citation network analysis (1998–2019). Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 2134–2152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1875001
• Torrance, E. P. (2003). The millennium: A time for looking forward and looking back. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 6–12. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2003-442
• Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
• Vygotskij, L. S., & Cole, M. (1981). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
• Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The importance of play: A report on the value of children’s play with a series of policy recommendations. University of Cambridge.
• Wijaya, T. T., Hidayat, W., Hermita, N., Alim, J. A., & Talib, C. A. (2024). Exploring contributing factors to PISA 2022 mathematics achievement: Insights from Indonesian teachers. Infinity Journal, 13, 139–156. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i1.p139-156
• Yang, C., Lim, J. H., Lin, X., Rho, E., & Dong, Q. (2025). An initial validation of Transformative Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Competencies Scale among Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) teachers. School Psychology Review, 54, 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2024.2355670
• Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.