Introduction

Educators need three types of knowledge to effectively teach: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and the combination of the two—pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1987). In the early childhood education and care (ECEC) context, scholars have been exploring the relationship between the who, what, and how of the learning process in early childhood (Rojas, 2008). Pedagogical practices in these settings range from the didactic interactions more typically associated with teaching, to modelling, prompting exploration, questioning, scaffolding the acquisition of specific skills, and nurturing a child’s disposition to learn (Stephen, 2010). Because working with infants and toddlers requires specific training and sensitivity, as recognized in the official curriculum (Gilken et al., 2023), it is essential to critically examine the ECEC curriculum and to continue develo** alternative theoretical frameworks for understanding the ways in which curricula can be considered (Wood & Hedges, 2016).

ECEC institutions are considered contexts wherein physical activity (PA) can be effectively promoted (Andersen et al., 2020; Hesketh et al., 2017). Given that PCK encompasses the interaction of different knowledge bases that teachers use to make decisions about what and how to teach, the literature has identified different problems related to PCK in physical education (PE) (Amade-Escot, 2000; Ayvazo & Ward, 2011; Backman & Barker, 2020). Gil-Madrona (2014) suggests that in the framework of ECEC, the didactic model (that is, the set of principles, ideas, and preconceptions on which the teacher bases their daily educational practice) serves to define educational objectives and guide the processes and teaching-learning strategies. Some approaches have been used in the early childhood setting to identify how teachers incorporate movement opportunities into the ECEC curriculum (Buckler & Bredin, 2021; Capio et al., 2022). However, studies are still scarce regarding PCK of structured and non-structured movement possibilities in toddler education (1–3 years old).

Some studies of content knowledge (CK) and PCK in the ECEC context have specifically focused on preschool PE. In Spain, Martínez-Bello et al. (2021) found that teachers and student teachers perceived several barriers that threaten PCK during structured movement sessions with older children (4–6 years old), along with some facilitating factors that promote it; overall, movement as an ECEC curricular practice was considered less important than in elementary education. In Chipre, Tsangaridou (2017) found that although ECEC teachers considered PE to be an important area in the school curriculum, they admitted that it has been undermined to a great extent and is viewed as a marginalized subject. In Sweden, Sollerhed (2022) found that teachers perceived that their low PCK for teaching fundamental motor skills was a barrier to teaching adequate movement and PA. Similarly, Stephen (2010) suggested that some ECEC practitioners find it difficult to articulate how they act to support learning. In general, it seems that asking about pedagogy still disturbs some ECEC practitioners, who cannot always distinguish between the learning content—the “what”—and the form of teaching—the “how” (Ekberg & Vallberg Roth, 2022; Stephen, 2010).

Some authors argue that movement CK in PE teacher education needs to be revisited and problematized (Backman & Barker, 2020; Nyberg et al., 2020). With a focus on ECEC, the literature calls for opportunities for professional development in PA promotion, describing the perceived lack of training among educators and their consequent low confidence, which could limit their capacity to facilitate young children’s PA (Dyment & Coleman, 2012; Martínez-Bello et al. 2021). At the same time, the official curriculum recognizes that working with infants and toddlers requires specific training and sensitivity (Gilken et al., 2023). Research regarding PCK in toddler education explores early childhood teacher undergraduate and postgraduate education programs to shed light on what pre-service teachers learn about children from birth to three years of age during their formal program of study (Garvis et al., 2013; Garvis & Manning, 2015). On the other hand, Marinsek et al. have identified competencies that early childhood educators might lack and which should be developed during continuous professional development (Marinšek et al., 2020; Marinsek & Kovac, 2019).

Other studies describe a common misconception in the ECEC context, that young children automatically acquire motor skills as their bodies develop, as a natural, “magical” process that occurs as children mature (Pica, 2006). Tribolet (2016) suggested addressing this aspect through a balanced curriculum, consisting of structured and unstructured opportunities for indoor and outdoor active play, and perhaps most crucially, a curriculum where educators are as physically engaged in play as the children. For their part, Gehris et al. (2015) called for further research to identify the correct mixture of structured (adult-guided) and unstructured (free) movement experiences and the type of natural features that would best support children’s movement and learning.

Being physically active plays an essential role in a young child’s physical development (Dapp et al., 2021), and toddlers should be physically active every day for at least 180 min (WHO, 2019). The literature reports associations between PA in young children and motor skills (Van Capelle et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2020), which is typically divided into fine and gross motor abilities (Matheis & Estabillo, 2018). Fine motor skills require coordination of smaller movements between the fingers, hands, and feet (holding crayons, building a small tower of blocks, etc.), whereas gross motor skills require coordination of an individual’s arms, legs, and other large body parts for actions such as running, jum**, and throwing. Furthermore, through active play, young children should have ample opportunity to develop the prototypical motor skills of the three major task categories—posture, locomotion, and object interaction—that emerge in infancy (Newell, 2020).

In our country, as elsewhere in Europe, ECEC policies and practices have been characterized by a division into practices and forms of care for children under and over 3 years old (Rutanen, 2011). The 0–3 years stage has its own curricular identity (Valencian Community, 2008), and the promotion of healthy lifestyles, including PA, is becoming increasingly important as ECEC institutions take on a larger role as promoters of healthy behaviors (Spain, 2022). However, studies in this line are still scarce, and none have yet analyzed both the perceived CK and PCK in teachers and student teachers with regard to structured and unstructured movement opportunities in toddler ECEC (1–3 years old). As it is not feasible to implement childcare center-based PA interventions originally designed for preschool-age children in toddlers (Alhassan et al., 2021), in this study we wanted to assess ECEC educators’ and student teachers’ perceptions of what they know, how they transmit it, what kind of curricular practices they execute, and the didactic implications of movement opportunities in toddler education (including barriers and facilitators) in order to provide novel insights about how the toddler ECEC community perceives structured movement sessions on the ECEC curriculum. Furthermore, we decided to study both educators and student teachers because it was important for us to unify, in a single manuscript, the opinions, reflections, and practices of the established and student teachers often interact to produce quality curricular practices. We believed that our research could provide relevant information on the status of structured movement opportunities, the knowledge content, and the PCK of the two main actors who are expected to work together in a harmonious and complementary way.

Materials and Methods

Design

This was an exploratory qualitative research study, in which open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews and qualitative content analysis of a written questionnaire were conducted. It took place from January 2022 to July 2022.

Participants

The study included 14 educators of toddlers, who were teaching in six different public ECEC Spanish institutions in the Valencia metropolitan area. Eight, four, and two educators had 15, 10, and 5 years of experience, respectively. In addition, 20 female student teachers (aged 20–24) in their final year of undergraduate ECEC studies at a public university participated (all had completed four months of student teaching at a public school). Before the data collection procedure, the principal investigator (PI) explained the purpose of the study and obtained verbal informed consent from both ECEC educators and student teachers. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Valencia (Ethical approval code-UV-INV_ETICA-1,441,131).

PA in the ECEC Context

In line with PA’s position in the ECEC curriculum in our context, our research is framed around three main objectives from the mandatory curriculum (Valencian Community, 2008): (a) this educational stage should focus on promoting children’s personal autonomy through a progressive mastery of the body, sensory development, and the ability to communicate and socialize; (b) the ECEC curriculum should develop young children’s ability to know the external characteristics of their own body and to discover the possibilities of action; (c) school institutions should be an important agent in generating healthy habits that facilitate the acquisition of healthy lifestyles and behavioral patterns that promote wellness and health.

Characteristic of ECEC Institutions, Educators, and Student Teachers

In all the centers, the school hours were from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with about 45 min of recess time, 30 min for lunchtime, and 60 min of nap time. Furthermore, one or two educators were in charge of all the classes, and another group of educators carried out specific activities such as music, painting, PA, etc. In all centers, there was an outdoor playground, and in half of them there was a special classroom for structured PA.

Educators were recruited from public ECEC institutions. These centers all follow the same ECEC curriculum, i.e., the infant and toddler curriculum. Notwithstanding the above, the centers enjoy a certain degree of autonomy within the framework established by the official curriculum to create the curricular activities most in line with their educational project.

Student teachers were in their fourth year of the ECE degree program. This degree qualifies graduates to work as ECE teachers of 0 to 6 year-olds. Furthermore, students of this degree have a compulsory professional internship of almost a full academic year, distributed in the first, third, and fourth years. These internships are carried out in the schools of the Valencian education system and require full-time dedication. During their training, they have worked on a compulsory subject entitled “Didactics of physical education in early childhood education”. The course is developed over four months, with a total of 60 h devoted to in-person learning and 90 h to activities outside the classroom.

Instruments and Data Source

We used two information sources to analyze the perceptions: (a) semi-structured interviews conducted with the ECEC educators and (b) a written questionnaire developed for student teachers. Pseudonyms were used in order to protect participants’ privacy. With ECEC educators, the PI performed all interviews according to a standard guide, asking participants for clarification when necessary. Interviews were performed in each ECEC institution after school hours. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Student teachers self-completed the 4-item, written questionnaire in the Faculty of Education; it took about 10 to 15 min to complete.

Questions on the Interview and Written Survey

The questions were constructed as followed. The questions aimed at the educators and the students had a common thread along three broad guidelines: (a) identification of the movement opportunities that toddlers have during the ECEC day; (b) identification of the curricular contents worked in the context of toddler ECEC; and (c) knowledge about PA recommendations. Based on this, two researchers independently formulated a series of questions for each instrument. The interview questions were based on a literature review of PCK on movement opportunities that educators developed in their curricular practices. Afterwards, semi-structured interviews took place around the following questions: (a) What are the structured and unstructured movement opportunities during the ECEC day? (b) What are the aims of these sessions? (c) What curricular contents are worked on in the movement sessions? (d) Do you develop these PA opportunities? Regarding the structured movement opportunities, how are the sessions structured? (e) What knowledge do you have about PA recommendations?

The written questionnaire with student teachers focused on questions regarding their PCK and previous experience with the movement opportunities in the framework of toddler education. The questions were: (a) What knowledge do you have about PA recommendations? (b) What movement opportunities are available to children aged 1 to 3 years in ECEC institutions? (c) What are the aims and curricular contents developed in toddler education regarding movement possibilities? (c) Do you feel competent for develo** structured or unstructured movement possibilities in the toddler classroom?

Data Analysis Procedure

The data collection and analysis were completed through a qualitative approach. Data from the interviews and the written survey were transcribed in a Word document. For the qualitative analysis of the transcript, the first and the corresponding authors reviewed each data source and all the transcripts independently to detect and extract meaningful quotations and reactions; we then developed a pre-categorization of the information using an initial coding scheme. Next, by selecting units of analysis, coding them, and then classifying them, we detected the most significant issues, identifying 12 initial categories using a deductive coding scheme and finally extracting 8 major categories. For the complementary analysis of educators’ and students’ perceptions, we proceeded as follows. First, the qualitative analysis was conducted for each participant separately (educators and students). Second, the data were compared, taking into account the three broad guidelines of the research outlined above. That is, similarities and differences were sought between the answers to some questions between teachers and students. Third, once the common elements were identified, they were incorporated into the categories that had been extracted from the analysis for each participant, creating the definitive list of categories.

Results

Table 1 shows the 6 major categories and the 18 subcategories identified from the analysis of educators’ and students’ perceptions about how PCK on movement opportunities is embodied in the toddler ECEC context (Table 1).

Table 1 Categories and subcategories identified in ECEC educator and student teacher interviews and in the written questionnaire
Full size table

Table 2 shows the two major categories and the seven subcategories identified from the analysis of educators’ and students’ perceptions regarding sources of knowledge and barriers and facilitators to movement opportunities in the toddler ECEC context (Table 2).

Table 2 Categories and subcategories identified in ECEC educator and student teacher interviews and in the written questionnaire on sources of knowledge and barriers and facilitators to movement opportunities
Full size table

Discussion

The Importance of PA in Toddler Education

The increasing amount of time young children now spend in childcare means that care providers can feasibly play an important role in sha** children’s health behaviors (Hesketh et al. 2017). Sisson et al. (2017) found that teachers acknowledged the importance of movement in young children and their innate need to be active. Educators and student teachers alike see PA as important to the overall development of children (Table 1. 1. a).

Recent PA guidelines for children under 6 years recommend 3 h of daily PA during waking hours for children who are able to walk, with specific age-appropriate guidelines such as increasing PA intensity when children grow (WHO, 2019). Although teachers need to be familiar with such guidance so that ECEC can truly be a context that promotes PA, they admit to having little knowledge of these recommendations (Table 1. 1. b):

What I have heard the most about is to enroll them in swimming… but I have not heard about doing any sport or physical activity. - Educator C.

On the Other hand, Student Teachers were more Knowledgeable (Table 1. 1. b):

I seem to remember that the recommendations, generally speaking, are approximately two hours of PA per day. – Student teacher C.

Previous research has found that teachers in the ECEC context either have little knowledge about PA recommendations or that they have acquired the knowledge through training (Buckler & Bredin, 2021; Hesketh et al., 2015). Our results suggest that more experienced teachers have less knowledge than prospective teachers. This may be due to the influence of the new curricula, but future studies should elucidate this question. We agree with previous researchers arguing that ECEC providers and future ECEC training on movement in child care should educate teachers about the currently insufficient levels of PA of children in child care (Hesketh et al., 2015; Sisson et al., 2017).

Our analysis also uncovered the interchangeable use of terms such as movement, PA, and physical exercise:

We use the tracks for physical exercise, psychomotricity, they crawl, run, jump, in other words, this playground is a great place to play. - Educator D.

They come in, take their shoes off, we do a little warm-up, physical exercise, which they love. - Educator E.

This trend has been previously reported in the field of research within the context of ECEC. For example, Buckler et al. (2021) found that ECEC teacher generally viewed exercise as any type of physical movement and that PA and exercise were used interchangeably in survey responses (Buckler & Bredin, 2021).

Diversity of Curricular Approaches and Practices Related to Movement in Toddler Education

Among the aims of the study, we wanted to examine toddlers’ opportunities to be physically active in ECEC institutions. Two main trends were apparent. The first had to do with free play as a movement opportunity (Table 1. 2. a). Recently, Sollerhed (2022) found that the educators seldom or never taught structured PA and relied on children’s free play for physical and motor skills development. In the same line, Van Zandvoort et al. (2010) showed that ECEC teachers reported that playtime is characterized as free/unstructured time during which the children can do what they like. Thus, the opportunity for movement is mainly based on the child’s own interest, and this interest, together with the contextual conditions, explains the manifestation of different opportunities for movement.

In addition to free play options, structured movement sessions are seen as an opportunity for children to be physically active (Table 1. 2b). Educators recognize diverse curricular practices for structured movement: (i) experiential psychomotricity sessions; (ii) motor circuits; (iii) other alternatives; and (iv) cross-curricular activities.

Relational psychomotricity is among the structured movement sessions with which educators of toddlers and student teachers are familiar (Table 1. 2bi). Indeed, the term “psychomotricity” in relation to this structured movement is highlighted by an educator:

They have what is called relational or experiential psychomotricity, these are the sessions that we prepare in the space… with all kinds of materials… - Educator F.

This curricular practice has also been described by teachers of older children (3–5 years old) as a common practice in the ECEC context (Martínez-Bello et al. 2021). In this line, the educators participating in the current study rightly recognize that freedom of movement is fundamental in these early stages, avoiding the prescriptive approaches of more traditional PE practices:

Normally we don’t set up a lot of circuits because we think it’s freer, they think it’s freer because you may structure a circuit and they don’t like that. - Educator G.

Gil-Madrona (2014) studied Motor Education in Early Childhood Education, finding that teachers are more or less consciously attached to certain theoretical positions from the perspective of discipline during their work with children. In this line, educators also recognize the presence of more directed PA opportunities, identified as motor circuits (Table 1. 2bii).

There are several curricular approaches that allow children to experience a wide variety of opportunities for action, ranging from free options to more relational ones and others based more on instruction. In fact, working methods based on experimentation, activity, and play are common in the ECEC context (Gil-Madrona, 2014). In general terms, research in the ECEC context has shown that educators use diverse child-centered interventions to promote PA, such as planning PA according to the weekly theme or integrating movement into daily routines, as well as using music in different environments (Alhassan et al., 2021; Connelly et al., 2018). In fact, the decision not to incorporate structured opportunities for movement is mediated by the school’s own policy and because educators consider it unnecessary given the role of other PA contexts such as the playground:

Therefore, we do not consider working psychomotricity as such. We think “why are we going to work psychomotricity if there is all the psychomotricity all day long at their disposal?” - Educator A.

In addition to the integration of movement opportunities, educators also recognized that structured movement opportunities are incorporated into schools’ curricular practices in line with the principles of the school philosophy and the educational project:

From the time that the pedagogy that we want to follow is created in the school, movement is considered so important for children. - Educator J.

Movement is considered fundamental here, in fact, psychomotricity, I always explain it to the parents, intelligence is motor… - Educator E.

Other curricular practices were also found. For example, some teachers report that they organize yoga sessions in their classrooms (Table 1. 2biii):

For example, we are also going to start yoga. - Educator B.

In other cases, teachers recognize the complementarity of proposals within curriculum development, combining structured and unstructured movement opportunities during the school day (Table 1. 2biv). Furthermore, depending on the freedom of planning activities, sometimes the movement opportunities manifest in the framework of other curricular practices:

Sometimes it is through English, the English teacher works psychomotricity, other times the main educator does the motor development. - Educator B.

We work on movement with music, movement with theater, movement of all kinds. - Educator I.

Toddler educators were competent in distinguishing PCK in the different curricular practices related to movement. For example, some teachers who recognized the presence of structured PA opportunities differentiated between structured PA and free play opportunities, as illustrated by the following responses from two educators:

I do let them play freely in the playground, but in this room is where we do more directed activities. Everything is more marked activities and with rules, while in the playground it is much more open. - Educator L.

I didn’t set activities for them, it was free movement, and they were creating their own activities or games. - Educator J.

In general terms, there are several pedagogical curricular models that address the promotion of movement opportunities in the ECEC curriculum for ages 12 to 36 months. Options primarily centered on free play, as well as more structured options through experiential psychomotor activity, or curricular practices within the toddlers’ classrooms, are manifestations of the diversity of curricular approaches. In line with this, as suggested by Gil-Madrona (2014), the motor education activities proposed in the classroom serve as an extension of those carried out during the rest of the school day, with this educational intervention immersed within the didactic model followed by each teacher or early childhood center and included in the overall lesson plans. The diversity of pedagogical approaches observed in this study were possibly mediated by the following factors. On one hand, there is a lack of curricular specificity in the regulations on the pedagogical methods for develo** motor skills and motor competence in toddler education. This lack of standardization in the official curriculum may be positive in terms of allowing schools greater freedom in creating and organizing their own educational projects. However, there is a risk that this freedom could translate to a total absence of PA opportunities in the center’s curricular practices, instead of resulting in more diverse and richer opportunities for movement. Further research is needed to study these effects.

Aims of Structured Movement Sessions in Toddler Education

Since structured PA opportunities are manifested as a curricular practice, we wanted to explore in depth the aims that teachers perceived could be achieved through structured movement sessions. The following were identified: (a) development of autonomy; (b) problem-solving skills; (c) social skills and; (d) opportunities for achieving PA recommendations.

Educators and student teachers pointed out that structured movement sessions allow an exploration of the materials while respecting and favoring the child’s autonomy (Table 1. 3a). Furthermore, for educators, structured movement sessions occur in a context providing children with problem-solving opportunities (Table 1. 3b). Two educators explicitly describe this:

Different situations are set up, simpler and more complicated ones, and each child is prepared where he/she arrives, not all of them do the same thing. –Educator G.

Then, we set up different challenges… With the mats, we make mazes for them to get into or destroy them. We set up a series of situations to see how they solve [them]. – Educator J.

The student teachers recognized that in addition to pursuing the objectives previously mentioned during their training, they also had other sets of objectives related to the development of social skills (Table 1. 3c). Among these, they acknowledged that structured opportunities gave girls and boys a context in which to engage in necessary PA (Table 1. 3d).

Curricular Contents Worked During the Structured Movement Opportunities

The curricular contents worked in the structured movement opportunities were (Table 1. 4): (a) fundamental motor skills, (b) motor capacities, (c) social skills and (d) corporal expression. Educators recognize several aims and curricular contents that are worked during structured movement sessions, suggesting that content knowledge and general pedagogical content are related, with movement used as a source for young children’s development. In a recent study, ECEC teachers of children 3–5 years of age identified different active methodologies performed with older preschool children, including motor and/or symbolic play; motor story; motor songs; motor circuits; and learning environments (Alcaraz-Muñoz et al., 2022). Our study shows that these different methodological approaches are also worked in toddler education, with the psychomotricity session representing another opportunity for structured movement. All in all, the way educators perceive this structured movement opportunity is within a framework of holistic development for young children.

Methodology used in Structured Movement Sessions

Teachers use diverse curricular materials that provide different motor possibilities (Table 1. 5a). Furthermore, both practicing and student teachers reported that psychomotricity sessions (as a structured PA opportunity) were held once a week and normally lasted between 45 and 60 min (Table 1. 5b). Like some educators, some student teachers pointed out that in their training period, not all centers chose to carry out structured PA sessions:

In the case of the schools I have known, one of them did not do these psychomotricity classes, but in class they did 10 min of very passive movements and that was it. – Student teacher A.

Regarding the structured activities (“psychomotricity sessions”), the teachers described these as organized within the school timetable through a series of parts (Table 1. 5c).

The teachers recognized in this movement experience the theoretical framework of “experiential psychomotricity” proposed by the French teachers Lapierre and Aucouturier (Aucouturier & Lapierre, 1975), which has had an important impact on ECEC in the Spanish and Latin American context (Coler et al., 2010; Martínez-Bello et al. 2021). For instance, Martínez-Bello et al. (2021) identified experiential psychomotricity as a common curricular practice in ECEC for children between 3 and 6 years of age, where psychomotricity is conceived as being related to knowledge of the body and its possibilities for action rather than as a component of sports teaching, which could be tied more closely to the PE curriculum. Furthermore, as shown by Coler et al. (2010), the symbolic representations of leisure activities are also a subject of reflection, as is the role of the adult figure working to transform the pleasure of acting into the pleasure of thinking.

Settings of Movement Experiences

The environments where both structured and unstructured opportunities for movement occur are (a) the outdoor environment, (b) the traditional indoor classroom, and (c) the PA classroom (Table 1. 6).

ECEC educators identify the outdoor environment as a context for movement opportunities (Table 1. 6a). This finding is consistent with other studies, reporting that teachers highlighted the importance of outdoor time to foster movement, exploration and learning in young children (Guardino et al., 2019; McClintic & Petty, 2015; Sisson et al., 2017). One educator stated:

The slides outside are used a lot; the tricycles and the scooters are something they love. – Educator H.

Some teachers have incorporated movement opportunities into their usual curricular practices in the traditional classroom (Table 1. 6b). For example, one educator recounted:

I set up a pure and simple psychomotricity classroom, so there was a wooden slide, a ramp … I didn’t give them activities but it was free movement, and they created their own activity or game. - Educator C.

Educators also recognize the indoor space as a context for structured PA, in particular a special classroom known as “the psychomotricity classroom” (Table 1. 6c).

Altogether, then, educators offer a wide variety of movement opportunities in the toddler education curriculum. Within this framework, they recognize the “power” that the environment has for provoking different motor experiences through options linked to free play both outdoors and in the indoor environment of the traditional classroom. This observation has been noted previously through simple but interesting modifications of space in traditional classrooms with 3–4 year olds (Segura-Martínez et al., 2021). However, Pons-Rodríguez and Arufe-Giráldez (2016) found that more than 30% of the children had their psychomotricity classes in unsuitable spaces, such as the regular classroom or the corridors of the center, suggesting that psychomotor work in educational centers is not always satisfactory in terms of time and space. Furthermore, educators follow the philosophy and policy of the curricular practices carried out by the school, making the guidelines of each educational project their own. Finally, educators are competent to recognize why they do or do not follow each of these proposals, identifying the strengths or weaknesses of adopting one proposal or another.

Sources of Knowledge

We analyzed the perceived sources of knowledge for both educators and student teachers. In this regard, educators described their own personal history as an important source of knowledge for implementing movement opportunities (Table 2. 1a).

Teachers’ backgrounds have been described as a factor influencing PCK in the ECEC context (Martínez-Bello et al. 2021). Martínez-Bello et al. (2021) showed that teachers recognized the role of their own teaching history, resulting from their overcoming barriers and negotiating the status of physical education in their ECEC institutions.

The educators and student teachers identified the official ECEC curriculum and university training as other sources of knowledge, respectively (Table 2. 1b, c). However, as discussed below, the lack of specific university training in toddler education is a barrier for implementing structured movement opportunities in the toddler classroom. Another source of knowledge, identified as a facilitator for movement curricular practices in ECEC, was the center’s policy (Table 2. 1d). As apparent from the responses, educators feel free to organize curricular practices associated with movement. Some teachers believe the school’s curricular policy, the built environment, and the way in which access to this enriched environment is provided are sufficient pedagogical criteria to guarantee toddlers’ motor development. In this line, as suggested in previous studies, the role of university training for develo** alternative ways of thinking must to be considered (Martínez-Bello et al. 2021), for instance focusing on the selection of curricular contents and methodological approaches in ECEC teacher education related to movement opportunities (Arufe-Giráldez, 2020).

Barriers to Structured Movement Sessions in Toddler Education

Despite the fact that many ECEC educators routinely include structured movement sessions as a normal learning activity, we found different barriers in the curricular development that hinder this practice in the classroom. In our country, the toddler classroom is usually managed by one or two main teachers, while different teachers are in charge of other ECEC practices like music, English, and movement experiences. However, this organizational framework in the ECEC institutions could be unworkable if there is no teacher available for managing the psychomotricity session (Table 2. 2a).

Likewise, the literature reports that in preschool settings (3–5 years old), the structured movement sessions are sometimes managed by teachers other than the main one. This is not necessarily due to the organizational setting but rather to feelings of incompetence. Indeed, Martínez-Bello et al. (2021) found that teachers who felt unprepared to run the movement session generally proposed that another person take over the responsibility, instead of training, learning, and rectifying the situation. Thus, as described elsewhere, many factors influence PCK, including the way it is experienced in the university context.

Educators also perceived a lack of training on PA as a barrier (Table 2. 2b), and student teachers pointed to a lack of knowledge about implementing movement opportunities in toddler education, considering that their university education was more focused on older age groups (3–5 years old) than younger ones (1–3 years) (Table 2. 2c).

In fact, previous research has described preservice teachers’ initial surprise and feelings of incompetence on their first contact with a toddler classroom (Recchia & Shin, 2010). Given that early childhood teacher education is considered crucial for the development of professional knowledge, preservice preschool teachers have different opportunities for training on CK, theoretical courses on PCK, theoretical courses on general pedagogy, and practical experiences (Torbeyns et al., 2020). Normally, students recognize the objectives and contents to work PA into toddler education, but without previous contact with a real school, they lack confidence to put their learning into practice and consider their university training to be insufficient:

Well…the truth is that I would have to see myself in the situation, because in the course of my studies, we have not been taught much practical experience… – Student teacher A.

I consider myself to have the relevant knowledge because we have studied it during the degree, but I lack a lot of practical experience… – Student teacher B.

In particular, although student teachers recognize a lack of experience and a much stronger focus on older children, they point to their own self-training as a possible alternative to overcome these barriers related to didactic CK:

In part we did receive some minimal training, but in some subjects it was not well executed…. I think I need to find my own resources and get more information on my own in order to complete my training in the best possible way. – Student teacher L.

A recent systematic review highlights that educators describe limited knowledge of PE and PA as a barrier to structured PA in ECEC centers (Jerebine et al., 2023). In fact, more training opportunities could boost teachers’ confidence on PA opportunities in the ECEC context (Buckler & Bredin, 2021). Furthermore, for ECEC students, adding a compulsory PA course or expanding the content of their college courses could be a positive way to enhance the understanding and education of PA for all future practitioners (Martyniuk & Tucker, 2014). Finally, as suggested previously, ECEC educators recognize that their initiative is an important factor determining the generation of changes in the curricular practices and ultimately the improved quality of the movement sessions. Taken together, further research is needed to study how pre-service teachers at ECEC institutions negotiate new ways of working PA in the toddler education context with experienced educators.

Strengths and Limitations

This study has some notable strengths. First of all, to our knowledge this is the first study that analyzes both the perceived CK and PCK in teachers and student teachers with regard to structured and unstructured movement opportunities in toddler ECEC (1–3 years old). We wanted to show the perceptions of both student teachers and practicing educators perceptions; first because we believe that the student teachers’ perceptions provide valuable information about the communication processes between student teachers and teachers in the classrooms, and second because we see untapped opportunities for these groups to complement each other and build PCK together. In addition, the participation of six ECEC institutions helps reflect the great diversity of approaches possible under the common curricular framework followed by the teaching staff. Although this type of study is important for increasing our theoretical understanding of the PCK of structured movement opportunities in toddler education (1–3 years old), future studies need to broaden both the theoretical perspective and the methodological approach. Therefore, the study also has certain limitations. First, we did not observe that the ECEC educators’ curricular practices corroborated their comments. For instance, it could be very helpful to analyze how structured PA opportunities are handled and how these curricular practices could impact not just PA levels, but also children’s knowledge of their own body and movement possibilities in relation with others, the materials, and the environment. Second, the data were collected in the framework of the previous Spanish ECEC curriculum, but in the fall of 2021 a new ECEC curriculum took effect (Spain, 2022). The new legislation lays out a model committed to the promotion of PA from early childhood onwards (Royal Decree 95/2022). Finally, although the ECEC context in this research was described, findings could be transferred to other ECEC contexts. However, teaching curricular practices regarding PA could vary between countries and must be adapted to their setting.

Practical Implications and Recommendations

Practitioners, academics, and policy-makers all bring different perspectives to the ECEC curriculum, along with different cultural agendas and aspirations for young children’s learning and development (Wood & Hedges, 2016). Our findings contribute to understanding educators’ perceptions regarding movement as a structured curricular practice for children aged 1 to 3 years and how they provide different structured movement opportunities to very young children. We propose a set of recommendations. First, toddler educators could find structured PA to be a complement to a harmonious development from a young age. Second, the public administration should support the continuous training of toddler educators through courses and seminars that update knowledge on the importance of PA and the adherence to PA recommendations in early childhood, with greater proximity to the new language of promoting healthy lifestyles from early childhood onwards. Third, student teachers during their ECEC training should receive specific training in young children’s curricula (for infants and toddlers, as well as preschoolers) to give them more capabilities to work PA in toddler education.

Furthermore, we observe that more specific training is needed not only with regard to knowledge of PA recommendations but also to enable teachers to offer quality curricular practices that develop toddlers’ competencies in the exploration of their own possibilities of action and the construction of motor competence. We agree with Kind (2009) that making PCK more explicit in the teacher education process may help novices adjust to teaching, as well as aiding experienced teachers in develo** more reflective practices. The diversity of curricular approaches and practices related to movement in toddler education could reinforce the toddler educator’s capability for a more enriched curriculum implementation.

By the other hand, it would be positive for future studies to analyze how university faculty (who train future teachers) and schoolteachers approach motor development and physical activity programs in the early childhood education curriculum. Current early childhood teaching education may generate new interpretations of in-service teaching, and in turn the current practices developed in the centers may impact the education and training provided.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study in Spain and internationally to analyze the PCK of structured movement opportunities in the toddler ECEC context. Our results show that educators and student teachers recognize that PA is important to young children’s development; however, minimal knowledge of PA guidelines to promote it was not evident. Educators and students described diverse curricular practices related with movement, identifying differences between structured PA opportunities and free play opportunities. Furthermore, the educators were competent in distinguishing between PCK in the different curricular practices related to movement. Regarding structured PA opportunities, these are worked from a traditional perspective (e.g., motor circuit) and through some relational experiences like experiential psychomotricity and other alternative activities (e.g., yoga). Movement opportunities are developed in both outdoor and indoor environments with diverse curricular materials and specifically in the weekly psychomotricity session in a special PA classroom. Finally, educators and student teachers identified different sources of knowledge as well as barriers and facilitators of structured movement opportunities in the ECEC toddler context. Educators were inspired by the center’s teaching approach, and in this framework they were completely free to include or omit structured movement opportunities as a curricular practice. However, this freedom may have resulted in fewer opportunities for meeting PA recommendations and hampered the acquisition and development of motor skills that offer more opportunities for knowledge of the body and its possibilities for action.