1. Problem: documenting or counting learning

Early childhood education circulates a demand that looks like one demand: leave a record of learning. It fits a conversation with families, a quality framework, and the menu of a platform that promises moments already documented. The phrase does not distinguish two operations. To document, in the tradition of learning stories and pedagogical documentation, is to stay with a process: watch the play, write what is being attempted, risk an interpretation, and return that text to the child and to the adult who accompanies them at home. To count is to increment an archive: one more photo, a tick, a place in a ranking, a sentence generated under the image. They can happen on the same Monday. Only the first is the craft.

The problem is not the camera or the screen. A photograph can be a medium for documenting play, and the digital can widen or narrow who speaks. The problem is the equivalence: a dashboard, a list of moments, a photo score, or a caption without protocol, presented as if they were already observation, interpretation, dialogue, and evidence of process. The omitted protocol has four pieces. Narrative writes time, not only the shot. Interpretation risks a revisable hypothesis. Dialogue returns the document to other voices. Evidence of process shows the attempt, the error, and the adjustment, not only the product in the photo. Without that, the trace serves logistics and is not documentation.

There is an economy of haste that should be named with two mechanisms, not a lament. The first is displaced authorship: ticking a box takes seconds; writing a learning story requires remembering how the construction fell, what the child said, and which question stayed open. The platform offers the first operation under the name of the second. The educator uploads files. The system suggests the caption, adds up the images, and declares the moment documented when the file exists. The visible signature is no longer that of the person who observed. The second is false closure: the box fills when the upload ends, while the learning story stays open because the same thread has to be taken up again. For the dashboard, done means uploaded. For the craft, done means interpreted and returned. Confusing the two definitions makes it possible to report that the room “already documents” when it has only archived.

This text reconstructs that non-equivalence without estimating an effect of the dashboard on development: the corpus does not authorize the figure, and none is fabricated here. Empirical finding, framework, and design inference are distinguished. What follows is a figure, the recent state of the art, the review, two blocks of findings, an anonymized case, and criteria stated as hypotheses. Counting can coexist with the craft. It cannot occupy it.

2. Figure: interpretive observation versus the dashboard

The figure is not a datum. It is a scheme so that the cut is not lost while studies of different objects are read. The two poles do not describe technologies: they describe operations. What the previous paragraph called documenting belongs on the first. What it called counting belongs on the second. The scheme sets them against each other so that no later citation fuses them again.

Pole of interpretive observation. Unit: episode of play or inquiry. Operation: observe, narrate, interpret, return. Authorship: the educator, with children and families as interlocutors. Time: the duration of the process. Criterion: the narrative makes a learning-in-progress visible. Product: learning story, commented panel, dialogue.

Pole of the dashboard metric. Unit: photo, tick, click, or checklist item. Operation: capture, count, rank, caption. Authorship: system or caption generator; the educator uploads. Time: instant or accumulation. Criterion: volume, coverage, “documented moment.” Product: dashboard, photo-count score, ranking of evidence, caption without protocol.

Figure 1. Conceptual contrast between interpretive observation and the dashboard metric. Scheme, not a fabricated datum. It reports no N, d, r, AUC, or percentages. The relation between poles is not “more digital, better documentation”: the cut is whether there was interpretation, dialogue, and evidence of process.

The scheme rejects two comfortable readings. The first opposes the digital to paper. It is false. Cowan and Flewitt (2023) describe, in the move from paper to digital, democratic potentials and challenges: the medium does not bring democracy with it. Wang and Stratigos (2025) listen to children and educators about both formats; participation is not guaranteed by the material. A closed notebook can be as mute as a repository no one rereads. The cut is the protocol.

The second reading acquits or condemns the photograph for being an image. That is false too. Matsumoto et al. (2023) study pedagogical photo documentation of play: the photo is a medium, and the shot alone does not decide which episode is chosen or how it is read. It can inhabit the interpretive pole. The score that counts photos cannot: it risks no hypothesis and does not return the image to the person who is playing. The file is ambiguous; the count is already classified.

Three consequences keep the sources from being asked to measure what they do not measure. A center can inhabit both poles on the same day: the figure does not expel the platform; it forbids calling documentation what only counts. A caption without protocol falls on the metric side even if it sounds like narrative, because no one observed in order to write it and there is no hypothesis to defend. The ranking rewards whoever uploads most, not whoever interprets, and the figure does not quantify that reward: it says what category it is. Dashboards studied at other levels are not dismissed here. Reading a chart requires literacy, guidance, and reworking in use. Those studies are not about the early childhood room. They serve as a limit, not as a bar of results.

3. State of the art: learning stories and Reggio

The state of the art that matters is not a catalog of apps. It is how recent research understands what a pedagogical document does when it is well posed, and what is left undone when the genre is emptied. Two traditions organize the 2021–2026 corpus, read in those studies and not in a foundational work the verified list does not include. The first is the narrative genre of learning stories, a site of inquiry and, at the same time, a practice easy to confuse with a requirement. The second is Reggio-inspired documentation, a matter of participation and not a style of display.

Sands and Lee (2024) place learning stories as a site of teacher inquiry and pedagogical change: a place where someone narrates what play makes visible, not a coverage form. A photo score does not open that site. Minson and Nuttall (2024) show the risk in the Australian framework: storied assessment is conflated with assessment for learning, and the approach works as a borrowed, underdeveloped genre. Qualitative finding: the name does not secure the craft. A “story” template can be as countable as a checklist.

The Reggio line, in the studies included, is not reduced to an aesthetic of panels. Alaçam (2026c) investigates the role of documentation in the participation of children and parents, from educators and families, in a Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool. The object is participation, not the number of images. Alaçam (2026a) examines child and family voice in digital documentation. Alaçam (2026b) gathers educators’ reflections on documentation itself. Read together —and it must be said that they are one research program, not the whole field— they move the document from the showcase toward the relation: who speaks, who is heard, what the educator does when thinking about what was kept. The design inference of this article, which is not a pooled result, is that a panel without voice and without reflection can look Reggio-like and still be decorated counting.

Those traditions are not romanticized, and the empirical detail is left for the findings. The framework is enough here: adoption can be mandatory and still not univocal (Lindh and Mansikka, 2023); the digital medium opens democratic potentials and challenges at once (Cowan and Flewitt, 2023); documenting is interaction, not a deposit (Keser and Aras, 2025); and the meanings of documented play are not in the file before they are built (Lee, 2026). The dashboard literature does not belong to this genre. It studies boards at other levels. The method states what was included on each side and what was not quantified.

4. Method: PRISMA-lite review 2021–2026

A narrative review with PRISMA-lite logic was conducted, not a meta-analysis. No effect of the dashboard was estimated and no coefficients were pooled. The purpose was to articulate what counts as pedagogical documentation and what remains counting. The cutoff is 25 September 2026. Each cited DOI had been verified in Crossref that day. No authors or identifiers were added outside the curated list.

Identification is not an invented search string. The editorial gate verified 461 DOIs. From that pool, 26 records were curated: eighteen on documentation, learning stories, voice, participation, photo documentation, or adoption, and eight on dashboards, their design, and their interpretation. Those figures describe the pool and the list, not the yield of an equation or a diagram with simulated exclusions.

Screening set aside two neighboring genres that do not enter the references: displays of children’s work in elementary school, and the teacher portfolio as a professional-development tool. Twenty-four records remained, sixteen of situated documentation and eight of analytics. Eligibility required the 2021–2026 window, using the print year when it diverges from the online year, a verified DOI, and an object of early childhood documentation or of a dashboard. Brochures were excluded, as were studies of another object —automatic feedback, cognitive training with apps— even if they share a screen with a board.

Extraction kept object, setting, and the status of the reading: empirical finding, framework, or basis for a design inference. No d, r, AUC, or percentages were extracted. When a verifiable abstract states a number of participants or artifacts, it is attributed to the researchers. The synthesis is narrative. PRISMA-lite names inclusion and the refusal to pool effects. The inferences in the discussion are hypotheses for centers and for whoever builds platforms. They are not a rubric or a norm.

5. Findings: situated pedagogical documentation

The sixteen studies do not say the same thing. They share an object: documentation is investigated as a practice of educators, children, and families, not as a coverage indicator. None of them licenses replacing observation with a count.

Sands and Lee (2024) treat learning stories as a site of inquiry and pedagogical change: an empirical and conceptual contribution. The story is where teaching can be revised, not the receipt that it occurred. Minson and Nuttall (2024) work with two educators in the Australian framework. Assessment told as a story overlaps with assessment for learning, and the approach remains borrowed and underspecified. Qualitative finding: the name can cover a practice still to be built. A label on a digital menu does not open the site Sands and Lee describe, and neither does a ranking of stories uploaded.

Lee (2026) gathers how experienced kindergarten teachers perceive play documentation: documenting play does not have a single meaning. Empirical finding of plurality. A counter that only distinguishes “there is a file” from “there is no file” cannot represent that dispute. A single caption for any play photo flattens it. Lee is not credited with an evaluation of generative systems; the corpus does not contain one. The inference belongs to this text.

Alaçam (2026a) examines child and family voice in digital documentation: the object is whether that voice occurs. Alaçam (2026b) stays with educators’ reflection, which is not an automatic metadata field. Alaçam (2026c) asks, in a Reggio-inspired preschool, about the participation of children and families. Findings of one program: documentation is judged by the relation, not by volume. Keser and Aras (2025) specify interaction. Documenting is an exchange, not photographing and walking away. A checklist does not record that quality; it records that the exchange was replaced by a mark.

Wang and Stratigos (2025) block any idealization. In a qualitative mosaic study, children may contribute to their documentation and revisit it, but their experiences usually fall short of what educators report. There is a gap between the adult account and the child’s experience. A caption or a score does not prove that the child spoke. To speak would be to return to the document and correct it. Appearing in a photo is not that return.

Cowan and Flewitt (2023) describe the move from paper to digital as democratic potentials and challenges, not as a linear improvement: who edits and who is left out are questions of the archive. Matsumoto et al. (2023) keep the photograph inside ongoing play; it is not validated by quantity. Caudle et al. (2025) analyze 131 artifacts from four preschool teachers in early computer-science education. Photographs predominate; there are fewer videos and fewer reflective notes. Two of the four privileged interactions and processes over products, mostly in small groups, and the teacher’s voice enriches what the photo does not say. Those figures belong to the authors and are not read as an effect on children’s learning, which they do not estimate in those terms. They describe a default: with autonomy, the camera weighs more than the note, and privileging process is a decision, not a property of the device. A photo score would measure the default, not the decision.

Lindh and Mansikka (2023) show that the Finnish mandate did not fix a single meaning: adoption can be fulfilled with careful panels or with files that only satisfy the obligation. Maldonado-Ruiz and Soto Gómez (2023), in a Spanish case, examine documentation as a path toward a research disposition —placing oneself on the other side— not as file productivity. Rodríguez-Carrillo et al. (2026), also in Spain, study documentation and action research as strategies tied to shared inquiry. That is not translated here into an increment this text does not reanalyze. Cameron (2026) treats documentation in teacher formation as shadow work, a labor the exhibited product does not always show. Gangal and Yilmaz (2023) investigate effects on preschool teachers’ classroom management. The object is teacher skill, not a children’s ranking. Coefficients are not copied and the direction of the effect is not invented. Even a study of “effects” looks for them in the craft.

The synthesis is an inference, not a meta-analysis. What counts as documentation is an interpreted trace returned to a relation: child, family, collective, formation. Volume is not the unit. Without a decision for process, the file resembles the metric pole even if there is no dashboard (Caudle et al., 2025). Participation, the narrative genre, and the mandate are not presumed (Wang and Stratigos, 2025; Minson and Nuttall, 2024; Lindh and Mansikka, 2023). A counter answers none of those warnings.

6. Findings: analytics, checklists and limits

The second block does not refute the first with other children aged three to five. It shows something more awkward for dashboard marketing: even where dashboards are the object of study, interpreting a chart is an additional craft, conditional and easy to skip. None of the eight papers evaluates pedagogical documentation in early childhood education. Their use here is the limit of transfer, and transfer is marked each time as a design inference.

Akçapınar and Taşalp (2026) study a dashboard intervention on interaction and achievement in online education. Their estimates are not reproduced and the direction of the effect is not invented. The setting is not play in the early childhood room: moving the device and keeping the verb “document” erases the context the study depends on. Van Kessel et al. (2025) interview 26 primary teachers who use dashboards daily. Empirical finding of conditions: skills, knowledge, and context are required; use varies; many find it hard to draw conclusions from the data. The figure is the source’s. The inference, which they do not formulate for early childhood and which carries no effect size here, is negative: if in primary school the board does not interpret itself, a photo score in the early years does not either. Displaying the number is not a pedagogical reading.

Herodotou et al. (2025) design, with 20 students, a dashboard for online and distance education. The needs concern course support and communication, and the data are chosen by what those students find useful. “Participatory” there means that adult users decide what to see. It is not the child’s voice in a learning story or family dialogue in a Reggio-inspired preschool. Declaring an early childhood board participatory because another population was consulted (Alaçam, 2026a, 2026c; Wang and Stratigos, 2025) confuses the name with the interlocutor. De Vreugd et al. (2024) design a dashboard for self-regulation of university study: what information is needed and how to make it usable. A checklist of moments does not even meet that modest standard. It only asks whether the file is there.

Alfredo, Echeverria, Jin, et al. (2024b) review human-centred learning analytics and artificial intelligence in education. It is a framework: design is not exhausted by the first screen, and they are not credited with validity for early childhood documentation. Alfredo, Echeverria, Zhao, et al. (2024a) show the empirical step: the board is reworked while it is used, temporarily or permanently, individually or collectively. Design-for-use does not coincide with design-in-use. Limited inference: a closed checklist declares the “documented moment” finished before the educator transforms the tool in contact with play. If interpretation occurs, it occurs despite the closure. Pozdniakov et al. (2024) investigate visualization literacy and guidance —emphasis, annotations, narration of the datum— in teachers’ reading of dashboards. Coefficients are not copied. The visualization is not read by itself, and the study is not of early childhood. A chart of photos per week does not deposit that capacity. With guidance it would still be an instrument of another literature, not a learning story.

Villagrán et al. (2024) design dashboards for feedback uptake and self-regulation in procedural skills of the health professions. Category boundary: a clinical cycle about a skill is not observation of play or dialogue with families, and a caption of a classroom photo is not that feedback. Each artifact fails by a protocol deficit, not by being digital. Screening also leaves an absence: among the 24 records there is no trial of generative captions in the early years, no validation of the moments checklist as documentation, and no photo score treated as an indicator of early learning. Criticizing them is not citing a measured harm. It is an inference from mismatch. What documentation requires —narrative, interpretation, dialogue, process— is not what they record, and what an interpretable dashboard requires —literacy, guidance, participatory design, reworking in use— is not in the tick or the caption either. The inference rests on what the sources study, not on a number no one calculated.

7. Anonymized classroom case (ages 3–5)

The case is an anonymized composite, not a sample: there is no group size, no interrater reliability, no comparison, and no effect. The center is not named. The group is aged three to five and the stretch lasts some weeks of the year, with no public calendar. Anyone looking for an N, a d, or an r is misreading the genre. It is an illustration. What is observed is the difference between a learning story, a panel returned to the family, and a counter. It is not claimed that the difference was measured.

During those weeks, a child returns to a block construction that keeps falling. She tries a wider base, asks a classmate to hold one end, gets frustrated, and tries again the next day. The educator writes a short learning story. She does not count the pieces. She names the attempt, the fall, the adjustment, and a question she does not close: what the child means by “hold.” She reads the story aloud. The child corrects a detail —it was not the end, it was the middle— and the correction enters the text. The interpretive pole is there in miniature: episode, narrative, revisable hypothesis, return to the person who plays. There is no score. There is a sentence that can be wrong and that, for that reason, is still pedagogical.

The episode leaves the room without becoming a statistic. On the hallway panel there are three photos in sequence: the unstable tower, the fall, the wider base. Under them, the handwritten interpretation and the sentence the child dictated. The adult at home writes in the margin that the bridge was also talked about there, and that a comparison appeared with a puddle that “would not hold” their feet. The note does not score the child. It widens the process. The document is dialogue, in the sense in which participation and interaction are objects of research (Alaçam, 2026c; Keser and Aras, 2025), although this case is not a datum of those studies and does not pretend to be their sample. The family does not receive a percentage. It receives a narrative it can answer.

The same week, another screen does the other pole. A board adds up the room’s photos and offers a documented-moment box, ticked when the file finishes uploading. Under one image of the bridge, a generated caption proposes a polished sentence about collaboration in block play. It does not mention the fall, the correction, the question, or the note from home. No one read it with the child. The box is complete and the ranking treats the room as up to date on evidence. False closure and displaced authorship happen together: the system signs an interpretation that did not exist, and the task appears finished. It is not claimed that the board harmed development. There is no comparison group. What is claimed is only what the episode shows by construction: the count and the caption did not do the work of the story, the correction, and the note. Whoever wants an effect will have to investigate it. This case does not stand in for it.

8. Discussion: criteria for genuine documentation

The discussion does not turn the findings into a scale. It proposes four criteria for whoever educates between the ages of three and five and for whoever designs tools. They are design hypotheses, without a rubric or a cutoff. The craft is conjunctive: failing one is not compensated by volume. They are developed in the body, not as a separate list.

The first criterion is interpretive narrative. A document that does not say what the educator thinks is happening is an archive or a borrowed sentence. There is narrative when there is a pedagogical question, not a filled blank (Sands and Lee, 2024), when the text can sustain correction and the plurality of meanings of play (Lee, 2026), and when teacher reflection is part of the document (Alaçam, 2026b). The name of the genre is not enough: a story can be empty if it is confused with compliance (Minson and Nuttall, 2024). The caption in the case fails even if it uses learning verbs: no one risked a hypothesis, and there is no author to amend it. Design hypothesis: if the person who observed cannot discuss the text, it is labeling.

The second criterion is dialogue with families and with children. Alaçam (2026a, 2026c) investigates whether digital and Reggio-inspired documentation give rise to voice and participation, not whether they produce more files. Keser and Aras (2025) make interaction the object: without exchange, the document has not yet occurred as documentation. Wang and Stratigos (2025) warn that what educators recount can exceed the child’s experience, and Cowan and Flewitt (2023) treat the democratic potential of the digital archive as a challenge, not as an activated box. The modest test is whether the child can change what was said and whether the family can add a meaning, like the puddle note, without turning it into an item. Herodotou et al. (2025) do not meet this criterion by analogy: their participation is that of adult students choosing data at a distance.

The third criterion is evidence of processes, not only of products. Caudle et al. (2025) show that the photograph dominates, that reflective notes are scarce, and that privileging process is a choice, not the default. Matsumoto et al. (2023) keep the photo inside ongoing play. The story in the case keeps the fall and the adjustment, not only the base once it is stable. Hypothesis: if the sequence does not allow reconstructing what was attempted, what failed, and what changed, there is an illustrated product. The product may accompany. It does not replace. The hypothesis does not fix how many photos “make” a process. It denies that the number is the answer.

The fourth criterion asks that observation not be replaced by the photo-count or the dashboard. It is not hostility to technology. In primary school, reading a board requires conditions and is still hard (Van Kessel et al., 2025); visualization literacy and guidance change interpretation (Pozdniakov et al., 2024); the instrument is remade in use (Alfredo, Echeverria, Zhao, et al., 2024a). None of those findings is from early childhood. They authorize only this: a displayed number is not an observation made. Akçapınar and Taşalp (2026), De Vreugd et al. (2024), and Villagrán et al. (2024) reinforce the limit of setting —online achievement, university study, procedural skill—. The count may sit beside the story as logistics: file capacity, image permission. In that role it does not claim to be documentation. If it is read as documentation, the criterion fails.

The conjunction is part of the hypothesis, not a finding. Stories without dialogue meet the first and fail the second. A dialogue about the final product, without process, fails the third. A good dashboard from another level can be good analytics and fail all four if it is imported as early childhood documentation. The photograph is not expelled: the digital medium and the image can inhabit the interpretive pole. What is asked is that the person who observed sign, that closure not occur when the file is uploaded, and that children and families be able to answer. This ceiling is not fused with others that also use a screen. It is not judged here whether an automatic comment is valid feedback, or whether a cognitive app replaces play. The caption is not a judgment of performance, and the photo score is not a memory or inhibition score. They share haste; the deficit of this article is another: documentation is announced where there was counting. Printing the four criteria as a universal compliance list would turn them into the checklist that is rejected.

9. Limits

The review is narrative. PRISMA-lite describes inclusion and the refusal to pool effects; it is not a meta-analysis or a diagram with invented screening figures. No d, r, AUC, or percentages are estimated. The only magnitudes that appear are attributed to the sources: 131 artifacts and four teachers in Caudle et al. (2025), two educators in Minson and Nuttall (2024), 26 primary teachers in Van Kessel et al. (2025), and 20 students in Herodotou et al. (2025). They were not recalculated or generalized. The classroom case is a composite. It is not fieldwork of this laboratory and must not be cited as new evidence.

The eight analytics studies are not early childhood studies. The inference of non-transfer may be hard on a future design that coupled visualization literacy, reworking in use, and the learning story: this article does not forbid that research; it notes that it is not in the corpus. Three papers on voice come from one program (Alaçam, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c) and weigh more than a field spread across many teams would. The Spanish cases, Finnish adoption, the Australian framework, Matsumoto et al. (2023), and Gangal and Yilmaz (2023) widen geographies without a global estimate. Cameron (2026) speaks of formation, not of a child indicator. There is no direct trial of captions, moments checklists, or photo scores in the early years: the critique is of category, not of magnitude of harm. Traditions are read only in the included studies; works before 2021 absent from the verified list are not cited. The criteria are not an inspection standard. The bibliographic year follows print publication when it diverges from the online date.

10. Conclusions

A learning-analytics dashboard, a checklist of “documented moments,” a photo-count score, or a GenAI caption of classroom photos, without a protocol of narrative observation, teacher interpretation, dialogue with families, and evidence of processes, does not constitute support for pedagogical documentation. The craft remains interpretive observation: writing learning stories, documenting the process with a meaning that can be discussed, and returning the document to those who learn and to those who accompany them. Counting can exist in the same room. It does not occupy that place.

Neither literature authorizes the shortcut. In early childhood education, the learning story can remain half built, voice does not always match what is declared, the medium does not decide the craft, the photo without narrative tends toward the default, and the mandate does not fix the meaning. In analytics, not even online, in primary school, at university, or in procedural skill does the visualization interpret itself. Where the sources do not measure the early years, this article does not pretend that they did. Where they measure voice, adoption, photography, or the reading of boards, it does not translate those measures into “the counter already documents.”

Four criteria remain, as hypotheses and not as a norm: narrative that someone can correct; real dialogue with families and with children; evidence of the process, including its falls; and a refusal to replace observation with the photo-count or the dashboard. The bridge case does not prove those criteria. It makes them visible. To document is to sustain that work. To count is to close it early and sign it with another hand. They are not the same craft, and they should not be presented as if they were.

Laboratorio Editorial de NEXTECH.IA / Ingeniero Mitre.

References

  1. Akçapınar, G., y Taşalp, D. (2026). The impact of learning analytics dashboard intervention on student interaction and academic achievement in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments. Publicación anticipada. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2026.2628248
  2. Alaçam, N. (2026a). Child and family voice in digital documentation in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 34(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2025.2502165
  3. Alaçam, N. (2026b). Early childhood educators’ reflections on pedagogical documentation. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 34(2), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2025.2501316
  4. Alaçam, N. (2026c). The role of pedagogical documentation in child and parent participation: An investigation of educator and parent perspectives in a Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 34(4), 680–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2025.2508319
  5. Alfredo, R. D., Echeverria, V., Zhao, L., Lawrence, L., Fan, J. X., Yan, L., Li, X., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., y Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024a). Designing a human-centred learning analytics dashboard in-use. Journal of Learning Analytics. Publicación anticipada. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2024.8487
  6. Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., y Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024b). Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 100215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215
  7. Cameron, K. (2026). Shadow works: The role of pedagogical documentation in teacher formation and professional development. International Journal of Early Childhood. Publicación anticipada. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-025-00478-6
  8. Caudle, L. A., Thompson, H. R., Quinn, M. F., Harper, F. K., y The CRRAFT Partnership. (2025). Preschool teachers’ pedagogical documentation: A snapshot of practices from computer science education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Publicación anticipada. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491251363261
  9. Cowan, K., y Flewitt, R. (2023). Moving from paper-based to digital documentation in early childhood education: Democratic potentials and challenges. International Journal of Early Years Education, 31(4), 888–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2021.2013171
  10. De Vreugd, L., Van Leeuwen, A., Jansen, R., y Van der Schaaf, M. (2024). Learning analytics dashboard design and evaluation to support student self-regulation of study behaviour. Journal of Learning Analytics. Publicación anticipada. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2024.8529
  11. Gangal, M., y Yilmaz, A. (2023). The effects of pedagogical documentation on preschool teachers’ classroom management skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 133, Article 104289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104289
  12. Herodotou, C., Shrestha, S., Comfort, C., Andrews, H., Mulholland, P., Bayer, V., Maguire, C., Lee, J., y Fernandez, M. (2025). A participatory approach to designing a student-facing dashboard for online and distance education. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2025.8481
  13. Keser, P. B., y Aras, S. (2025). Investigating the nature of interaction in early childhood pedagogical documentation contexts. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. Publicación anticipada. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2025.2505067
  14. Lee, H. (2026). The meanings of play documentation as perceived by experienced kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood Education Research & Review, 30(2), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.32349/ecerr.2026.4.30.2.29
  15. Lindh, C., y Mansikka, J.-E. (2023). Adoption of pedagogical documentation in Finnish ECEC settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(2), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01321-6
  16. Maldonado-Ruiz, G., y Soto Gómez, E. (2023). “Placing oneself on the other side”: How teachers’ dispositions toward research can be constructed through pedagogical documentation. A case study in Spain. Early Years, 43(2), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.1942796
  17. Matsumoto, H., Nishiu, H., Taniguchi, M., Kataoka, M., y Matsui, G. (2023). Pedagogical photo documentation for play in early childhood education and care. Early Years, 43(4–5), 794–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.2017407
  18. Minson, V., y Nuttall, J. (2024). Assessment for learning within Australia’s Early Years Learning Framework: What is the place of Learning Stories? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(4), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491221133464
  19. Pozdniakov, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Tsai, Y.-S., Echeverria, V., Swiecki, Z., y Gašević, D. (2024). Investigating the effect of visualization literacy and guidance on teachers’ dashboard interpretation. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(1), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2024.8471
  20. Rodríguez-Carrillo, J., González-Alfaya, M. E., Olivares-García, M. Á., y Mérida-Serrano, R. (2026). Pedagogical documentation and action-research processes as strategies for high-quality early childhood education teaching: A case study in Spain. Early Years. Publicación anticipada. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2025.2610297
  21. Sands, L., y Lee, W. (2024). Teacher inquiry and learning stories: A site for pedagogical change. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(6), 1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2024.2381118
  22. Van Kessel, M., Molenaar, I., Knoop-van Campen, C. A. N., De Jonge, M., y Saab, N. (2025). Primary school teacher perspectives on effective dashboard use in the classroom. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(2), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2025.8493
  23. Villagrán, I., Hernández, R., Schuit, G., Neyem, A., Fuentes, J., Larrondo, L., Margozzini, E., Hurtado, M. T., Iriarte, Z., Miranda, C., Varas, J., y Hilliger, I. (2024). Enhancing feedback uptake and self-regulated learning in procedural skills training. Journal of Learning Analytics, 11(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2024.8195
  24. Wang, Q., y Stratigos, T. L. (2025). Assessment as learning in practice: Children’s and educators’ views on digital and paper documentation. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 50(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391251358015