Quality in early childhood education and care: relationships with pedagogical dynamics profiles

1 Introduction

The organization of the educational environment is widely recognized as a key element of quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) (Eadie et al., 2024), shaping children's opportunities to explore, interact and engage actively in learning (Edwards, 2021; Tonge et al., 2019). The ways in which educators organize space, materials, time and routines have been shown to influence children's autonomy, initiative and well-being, as well as the quality of pedagogical interactions within educational settings (Lopes da Silva et al., 2016; Slot, 2018). Well-organized educational environments typically combine accessibility, flexibility and pedagogical coherence, enabling children to navigate the setting independently while supporting diverse forms of play, collaboration and individual activity (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011; Edwards, 2021; Slot, 2018). Consequently, the educational environment is increasingly understood not simply as a physical setting, but as the result of intentional pedagogical decisions that structure children's everyday experiences.

These pedagogical decisions are reflected in the everyday pedagogical dynamics of ECEC settings. The rhythm and flow of routines, the degree of children's agency in daily activities, and the ways indoor and outdoor environments are used and connected contribute to creating different educational experiences (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011; Collins et al., 2023; Tonge et al., 2019; Vitiello et al., 2012). These dimensions are unlikely to function independently of one another. Different combinations of routine organization, child agency, and the use of indoor and outdoor contexts may represent distinct pedagogical approaches to organizing everyday practice, each creating different opportunities for children's participation, autonomy, and engagement.

Although research increasingly emphasizes the importance of pedagogical processes in ECEC, studies have typically examined specific dimensions separately (e.g., Collins et al., 2023; Ozturk and Ozer 2022), or as part of broader measures of process quality (e.g., von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). Less is known about how these characteristics combine within educational settings to form distinct pedagogical profiles and whether these profiles are associated with different levels of perceived quality of the educational environment. A person-centered approach offers an opportunity to address this gap by identifying naturally occurring patterns of pedagogical dynamics among educators. Therefore, the aim of this study was to use a person-centered approach to identify profiles of pedagogical dynamics in ECEC contexts – specifically, routine flow, child agency, and the use of indoor and outdoor spaces – and to examine how these profiles relate to professionals' perceived quality of the organization of the educational environment.

1.1 Quality of early childhood education and care environments

Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is widely recognized as a key determinant of children's development, learning, and well-being (Melhuish et al., 2015; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD, 2021; Sluiter et al., 2025; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). It is a complex, multidimensional construct, encompassing both structural and process dimensions (Dahlberg et al., 2024; Edwards, 2021; Rademacher et al., 2025). Structural quality refers to relatively stable characteristics, such as group size, adult-child ratios, educators' qualifications, and the physical conditions of educational settings. In contrast, process quality pertains to children's everyday experiences within these settings, including the quality of interactions, pedagogical practices, and the organization of space, time, and routines (Eadie et al., 2024; OECD, 2021; Slot, 2018). Process quality is the primary predictor of children's learning and well-being (Rademacher et al., 2025; Slot, 2018; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023).

The organization of the educational environment, namely, the indoor and outdoor space (i.e., equipment and materials), in addition to time and routines (i.e., durations and agendas), is a core dimension of both the structural and process quality of ECEC contexts (Eadie et al., 2024). The educational environment is understood not only in terms of its physical characteristics and multiple structural components (Eadie et al., 2024), but also through the dynamic processes that structure children's everyday experiences, specifically supportive and positive interactions between educators and children (Ha et al., 2024). These aspects constitute the interconnected dimensions of the educational environment that must be planned, organized, evaluated, and intentionally adjusted to contribute to children's well-being, development, and learning (Lopes da Silva et al., 2016).

Process quality – particularly the quality of educator-child interactions – is the primary mechanism through which ECEC environments support children's development, whereas structural features mainly contribute indirectly by creating the conditions for high-quality pedagogical processes (Melhuish et al., 2015). Recent meta-analytic evidence further confirms that higher levels of process quality are consistently associated with more positive cognitive, academic, and socio-emotional outcomes for children (von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). Accordingly, much of the literature has focused on broad indicators of process quality, such as educator-child interactions, indoor organization, and the overall educational environment (Rademacher et al., 2025; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). Process-related aspects concerning children's participation and educators' intentionality have received comparatively little attention, particularly regarding how they contribute to the quality of children's everyday educational experiences. Crucially, the bridge between structure and process quality rests on educators' intentionality in promoting children's participation and agency. An environment is only truly high-quality if its routines and spaces yield to the child's voice, allowing them to co-construct the daily agenda. As Bondioli and Nigito (2011) argue, routines and spaces are structural reflections of educators' pedagogical relationships. Evaluating quality requires a reflective, negotiated approach (qualità negoziata) in which professionals' choices are continually re-evaluated in light of children's actual participation and well-being. Thus, understanding how educators perceive the quality of their educational environments is also important, as these perceptions reflect professionals' interpretations of the conditions under which pedagogical practice occurs and may shape everyday decision-making.

Consequently, the quality of early childhood education lies in the pedagogical intentionality that guides the organization of the educational environment, as well as in the coherence between educators' conceptions, the practices implemented, and the key aspects that support children's development and learning. It also sits within elements that are particular and contextual, continuously discussed and jointly decided among different stakeholders. This process involves a collective meaning-making process, articulating and defining the kind of educational environment that is considered important to the community – to name and signify the kind of education it desires and to talk about ‘what is important to us’ (Dahlberg et al., 2024). Within this democratic framework, professional collaboration becomes a cornerstone of educational environment quality. The orchestration of time and space cannot be a solitary task; it requires shared reflective practice among the educational staff. When professional collaboration is robust, routines lose their rigid, bureaucratic nature and become shared pedagogical projects, ensuring smooth transitions and the full utilization of both indoor and outdoor spaces (Pereira et al., 2025). According to Liang et al. (2026), in ECEC, such dyadic centering can narrow what becomes pedagogically recognizable by positioning the educator-child relationship as the main pathway through which learning is understood to occur. As a result, relationality can appear to take place primarily between educator and child, while other forms of meaning-making are rendered secondary or derivative. This dyadic centering is particularly constraining in ECEC contexts, where children's learning unfolds within an ecology of relations that extends beyond educator–child interaction. Pedagogical meaning is also generated through children's relations with families and peers, and through their engagements with more-than-human others (animals, plants, materials, places, and landscapes).

Overall, the quality of the educational environment extends beyond the physical characteristics of ECEC settings and arises from the interplay among multiple interconnected dimensions. High-quality environments are intentionally organized through the coordination of space and time, meaningful opportunities for children's participation and agency, partnerships with families and collaborative professional practices supported by pedagogical leadership. These dimensions are not independent; rather, they influence one another and collectively shape the educational experiences available to children. Consequently, the quality of ECEC environments depends not only on the presence of favorable conditions but also on the coherence and intentionality with which these conditions are enacted in everyday practice. This interplay is reflected in the pedagogical dynamics that characterize everyday life in ECEC settings. Research has consistently highlighted that the rhythm and flow of daily routines, opportunities for children's agency, and the intentional use and articulation of indoor and outdoor learning environments are key dimensions shaping children's engagement, exploration, and learning opportunities (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011; Collins et al., 2023; Tonge et al., 2019; Vitiello et al., 2012). Rather than representing isolated features of practice, these pedagogical dynamics operate in combination, creating different ways of organizing educational environments and supporting children's development and well-being, reflecting how these dynamics are realized in practice.

1.2 Pedagogical dynamics linked to the organization of the ECEC environment

Pedagogical dynamics are the relational and organizational processes through which educators and children co-construct learning in routines, play, care, transitions, and environments where learning and development occur in everyday child life. This definition captures the strongest common ground among relational pedagogy, play-based pedagogy, and process-quality research, which describe early childhood pedagogy as multidimensional, dynamic, and continually evolving (Kangas et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2026). These dynamics are relational at their core. Pedagogy is framed as emerging from interdependent relations among educator, child, peer, parent, self, and more-than-human domains, in which change in one relation affects the others (Liang et al., 2026).

Among the multiple dimensions through which pedagogical dynamics are enacted, routine flow, children's agency, and the pedagogical use of indoor and outdoor environments appear particularly relevant to the organization of educational environments. These dimensions reflect how educators intentionally organize everyday experiences through routines, interactions, participation, and the use of learning spaces. Together, they shape how children experience daily life in ECEC and are therefore likely to influence the quality of the organization of the educational environment.

Routine flow refers to the pedagogical organization of everyday time and the rhythm through which children experience daily life in ECEC. Rather than focusing solely on schedules, it encompasses how routines are organized, articulated, and experienced, including the balance between order and flexibility, predictability and novelty, stimulation and repetition, and the continuity of children's experiences across activities (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011). According to Bondioli and Nigito (2011), high-quality pedagogical organization of time is characterized by coherent transitions, varied rhythms, opportunities for both child- and adult-initiated activities, and continuity between experiences, enabling children to construct meaning rather than experiencing fragmented routines.

Research consistently shows that the organization of routine flow shapes children's opportunities for play, interaction, and learning. Routine structure influences what children can do, how long they can engage in activities, and the quality of the interactions that emerge. Studies comparing free-flowing and fixed indoor-outdoor schedules suggest that more flexible temporal organization supports richer educator-child interactions, greater physical activity, and more sustained play (Collins et al., 2023; Pereira et al., 2025; Tonge et al., 2019). However, flexibility does not imply the absence of structure. High-quality routine flow combines predictability with responsiveness, providing secure temporal anchors while allowing sufficient time for children to engage deeply in self-directed play and meaningful transitions (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011; Vitiello et al., 2012). In contrast, highly adult-directed and fragmented routines may constrain children's agency and responsiveness to their interests unless temporal decisions are negotiated within everyday practice (Pereira et al., 2025).

Children's agency is expressed through how children accept, resist, modify, or redirect everyday activities (Hygum and Hygum, 2023). The evidence suggests that agency is stronger when guidelines are flexible, activities allow choice, and children can participate across the day. Participation is operationalized through listening to and genuinely valuing children's perspectives in daily practice. To conceptualize this meaningful participation, Lundy's (2007) model provides a powerful framework, emphasizing that children must be granted (1) space to express views, (2) voice to facilitate expression, (3) an audience that listens, and (4) influence to ensure their views are acted upon. In a high-quality ECEC environment, processual dynamics ensure that children have the agency to challenge, reshape, and co-construct the very routines and spaces they inhabit.

An intentional educator meticulously observes children's agency to dynamically readjust structural elements (Lopes da Silva et al., 2016), such as transforming a routine transition (e.g., Pereira et al., 2025; Santos, 2017) or expanding an outdoor area (e.g., Adlerstein and Cortazar, 2022; Bento and Costa, 2022), to respond to pedagogical needs. Ultimately, this prevents the implementation of engaging, developmentally appropriate activities from becoming a top-down imposition. Instead, through the educator's conscious intentionality, the structural framework (time and space) yields to processual democracy (agency and voice), transforming the educational environment into a responsive, negotiated arena for collective meaning-making (Lopes da Silva et al., 2016; Vuorisalo et al., 2015).

The organization of physical space and the organization of time and routines involve distinct pedagogical processes and may therefore contribute differently to the quality of the ECEC environment (Pereira et al., 2026). Indoor and outdoor environments do not offer the same educational affordances, and their connection matters as much as their separate qualities. Outdoor, nature-rich, and well-designed spaces tend to broaden play forms and movement, while indoor layouts shape visibility, activity zones, and engagement in different ways (Kernan, 2023; Sandseter et al., 2020; Van Liempd et al., 2020). Therefore, the deliberate organization of indoor and outdoor environments expands the physical boundaries of learning (Berti et al., 2019). Physical spaces can thus be understood as representational spaces, shaped through ongoing negotiation and co-construction emerging from the meanings and practices of those who inhabit them, supporting both individual and collaborative learning (Strong-Wilson and Ellis, 2007; Vuorisalo et al., 2015). Therefore, the ways in which indoor and outdoor spaces are organized and integrated within daily routines shape children's everyday experiences and reflect educators' pedagogical intentions in practice (Kiviranta et al., 2024; Waite, 2007). The strategic availability of open-ended, non-structured materials and well-defined activity areas directly influences the flow of activities and creates structural opportunities for individualized attention, allowing educators to scaffold learning in smaller, more responsive groups (Lopes da Silva et al., 2016). On the other hand, participation tends to be higher in outdoor spaces than in indoor spaces for many children (Sivertsen and Moe, 2021). Semi-open spaces connected to closed rooms helped infants and toddlers gradually adapt to outdoor areas, showing that transitional spaces matter developmentally (da Costa et al., 2021).

1.3 The current study

Taken together, this body of research suggests that routine flow, children's agency, and the pedagogical use of indoor and outdoor environments are central dimensions through which educational environments are organized and experienced. However, these pedagogical dynamics dimensions have largely been examined independently, despite evidence that they are enacted simultaneously and interact in everyday practice. Consequently, little is known about how different combinations of these pedagogical dynamics characterize ECEC settings or how such configurations relate to the quality of the educational environment organization. Addressing this gap requires moving beyond variable-centered approaches towards methods that capture the complexity of pedagogical practice as it is enacted in context.

A person-centered approach is particularly suited to this purpose because it allows us to move beyond average effects and instead identify qualitatively different configurations of pedagogical dynamics within ECEC settings. Rather than assuming that all groups operate along the same continuum, this approach recognizes that multiple co-occurring dimensions can combine in distinct ways to form meaningful profiles (Howard and Hoffman, 2018). Instead of examining routine flow, children's agency, and the use of indoor and outdoor spaces separately, this approach considers how these dimensions co-occur in practice to form distinct pedagogical profiles. By identifying such profiles, the analysis captures the complexity of real pedagogical environments. In this way, a person-centered approach enables a more nuanced understanding of how specific combinations of pedagogical dynamics may facilitate – or constrain – the quality of ECEC environments.

Consequently, the aim of this study was to use a person-centered approach to identify profiles of pedagogical dynamics – specifically routine flow, child agency, and the use of indoor and outdoor spaces – in Portuguese ECEC contexts and to examine how these profiles relate to educators' perceptions of the quality of the organization of the educational environment. Two research questions guide our research: (1) What distinct profiles of pedagogical dynamics, characterized by patterns of routine flow, children's agency, and the use of indoor and outdoor contexts, can be identified among Portuguese ECEC educators? (2) How are the identified profiles of pedagogical dynamics associated with educators' perceived quality of the educational environment organization in ECEC contexts?

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Sample and population

The data used in the present study were collected as part of a broader research project examining the organization and quality of pedagogical environments in Portuguese ECEC settings. The project was conducted in accordance with established ethical principles for educational research. It received approval regarding ethical and procedural issues from both the Ethics Committee of Ispa-Instituto Universitario (protocol code I-005-02-25 from 13 March 2025) and the School-Based Survey Monitoring Service (Monitorização de Inquéritos em Meio Escolar – MIME, N° 0374900076) of the Portuguese Ministry of Education.

Our target population included all Portuguese ECEC educators with experience in preschool education (ages 3 to 6), regardless of whether they were currently performing that function. To identify ECEC settings across mainland Portugal and the autonomous regions (Azores and Madeira), we used the public database GesEdu (Instituto de Gestão Financeira da Educação, s.d.). This platform provides an official listing of educational institutions operating in Portugal. The link to the online questionnaire was sent to the directors of the identified schools and early childhood education centers, who were asked to share it with the educators working in their institutions. The questionnaire was preceded by an introductory note outlining the research objectives and the informed consent statement.

Data from this project have been used in a previous descriptive study examining educators' reports of pedagogical dynamics in ECEC contexts (Pereira et al., 2026). The present study builds on this dataset by adopting a person-centered approach to identify profiles of pedagogical dynamics and examine their associations with the perceived quality of the educational environment organization.

The initial sample comprised 802 participants. For the purposes of the present study, 45 participants who did not complete the pedagogical dynamics questionnaire were excluded, resulting in a final analytic sample of 757 participants: 582 were working as preschool educators at the time the questionnaire was completed, and 167 had experience in the field but were performing other functions or working as educators in other age groups. Most participants were female (98.5%), aged 25 to 68 years (M = 50.6, SD = 9.6), and had 1 to 45 years of experience as educators (M = 25.5, SD = 11.0) (See Table 1). Most participants work in public educational settings (58.3%) and are currently working as early childhood educators (95.0%). Additionally, 7.3% hold the position of pedagogical director, and 13.7% serve as pedagogical coordinators. Regarding educational qualifications, most educators hold a bachelor's degree (62.9%). The sample is similar to the population in terms of gender, age, and type of educational setting. Still, Alentejo and the Center regions were overrepresented, whereas the North region is underrepresented (see Pereira et al., 2026).

Table 1. Sample's sociodemographic characteristics and professional context.

Most educators work in heterogeneous learning environments with children spanning an age range of up to three years (from 3 to 6 years). On average, participants are educationally responsible for 20 children (M = 20.5, SD = 4.1, Max. = 30). The majority work in relatively small preschools with fewer than 100 children. The most used pedagogical approaches were the project-based approach and the Modern School Movement (See Table 1).

2.2 Instruments

We used the EduIn&Out Organization of ECEC Environments Questionnaire (Pereira et al., 2026) to assess educators' perceptions of the quality of the Organization of the ECEC environment and their characterization of the Pedagogical Dynamics typically present in their contexts. Additionally, sociodemographic and professional information was collected, including gender, age, years of experience as an early childhood educator, the region where participants currently work, the type of educational setting (public or private), and the role held (early childhood educator, pedagogical director, or pedagogical coordinator). Information was also gathered on the number and age range of children in the educator's group in the current year, the pedagogical approaches with which participants identify (Modern School Movement, Waldorf Pedagogy, HighScope Model, Pedagogy of Participation, Reggio Emilia Approach, Project-Based Learning, and other), and the number of children enrolled at the center (fewer than 50, 50–100, 101–200, 201–300, more than 300).

2.2.1 Quality of the organizations of ECEC environment

The first section of the questionnaire assesses early childhood educators' perceptions about six different dimensions of the ECEC educational environment: space and equipment (for both indoor and outdoor learning spaces), time management and routines, families' and children's participation, coordination with the educational team, and coordination with the center's leadership (See Table 2). The items reflect quality practices based on Portugal's curriculum guidelines for preschool education and on other national and international studies that address the assessment of educational environments and time use in ECEC. Educators are asked to indicate, on a 1-to-7 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), the extent to which they agree that those practices are present in their everyday ECEC environment. Participants' responses to the items were averaged to yield a total score for each dimension, with higher values indicating greater perceived quality of the organization of the ECEC environment. For the present sample, we found evidence of structural validity – χ²(1,360) = 5,991.79, p < 0.001, CFI = .911, TLI = .906, RMSEA = .067, IC90 [.065, 0.069]. Internal consistency reliability estimates were adequate for all dimensions (See Table 2).

Table 2. Quality of the organization of the ECEC environment scale characteristics.

ω = McDonald's omega.

2.2.2 Pedagogical dynamics linked to the organization of the ECEC environment

The questionnaire also gathers educators’ overall characterization of their contexts' pedagogical dynamics across three dimensions: the routine flow (rhythm of daily routines – 5 items), children's agency (child- or adult-centered – three items), and use of indoor and outdoor contexts (5 items) (See Table 3). Educators were asked to report how frequently a series of pedagogical dynamics typically occur or reflect their usual practice in their ECEC centers, using a 1-to-7 Likert scale (1 = never to 7 = very frequently). These reports are interpreted as indicators of how educators organize, use, and sustain the pedagogical environments through their everyday actions. Each item is analyzed individually.

Table 3. Pedagogical dynamics questionnaire items.

Given that both pedagogical dynamics and perceived quality of the ECEC Environment were evaluated through educator self-report, Harman's single-factor test was conducted to assess the potential influence of common-method variance. All individual items from both measures were entered simultaneously into an unrotated exploratory factor analysis, and the proportion of variance explained by the first factor was examined. Harman's single-factor test indicated that the first unrotated component accounted for only 34.46% of the total variance. Moreover, 11 components had eigenvalues greater than 1, suggesting that no single factor dominated the covariance among the self-report items. These results provide no indication that a single common-method factor accounted for most of the variance in the measures.

2.3 Data analysis

Descriptive analyses and bivariate correlations were conducted to provide a general exploratory overview of the relationships among the study variables. Using educators' responses to items from the Pedagogical Dynamics section, we conducted a latent profile analysis (LPA) in Mplus 8.6 (RRID:SCR_015578) to identify distinct profiles or groups of teachers characterized by differing perceptions of routine's flow, child agency and use of indoor and outdoor spaces (Research Question 1). To perform the LPA, we followed the procedures of Ferguson et al. (2020). LPA models were estimated using the robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimator. All seven-point indicators were standardized prior to model estimation. To reduce the risk of local maxima, 1,000 random sets of starting values were generated, with the best 250 retained for final-stage optimization, allowing up to 500 iterations. The bootstrap likelihood ratio test was based on 250 bootstrap draws. As suggested by Ferguson et al. (2020), multiple models were analyzed, varying the number of profiles. Each model was compared with the previous one to determine the appropriate number of latent profiles that exhibit a meaningful, interpretable pattern of responses regarding educators' pedagogical dynamics. We used several criteria to decide on model retention, following Ferguson et al. (2020). We used the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Sample-Adjusted BIC (SABIC), and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) as indicators of fit. Lower values in these criteria indicate a better fit. We utilized entropy as a measure of uncertainty to guide our decision-making. Values of 0.80 or higher indicate that the classification of individuals' profiles is made with minimal uncertainty. We used the average posterior classification probabilities (ALCP) to assess the likelihood that cases were accurately classified into the correct profile, with a recommended threshold of 0.80. We used Lo, Mendell, and Rubin (LMR) and bootstrap likelihood ratio tests (BLRT) to compare the models. Non-significant LMR or BLRT tests indicate that the more parsimonious model has a better fit. Conversely, significant results indicate that the assessed model performs better than the more parsimonious model. In addition, we evaluated the theoretical support for the model that best fits the data, as well as the interpretability of the identified profiles.

Once the better model was selected, to provide a comprehensive description of the educators classified in each profile, educators' sociodemographic and professional information were included as covariates in the model. We included years of experience as an early childhood educator, type of educational setting (0 = public or 1 = private), role (early childhood educator as reference, vs. pedagogical director or pedagogical coordinator), the number of children in the educator's group, children's age heterogeneity, the three pedagogical approaches with which more participants identify (Modern School Movement, Pedagogy of Participation, and Project-Based Learning), and the number of children enrolled at the center (1 = fewer than 50, 2 = 50–100, 3 = 101–200, 4 = 201–300, 5 = more than 300). Sociodemographic characteristics associated with profile membership were examined using the automatic R3STEP procedure in Mplus, which accounts for classification uncertainty while preserving the latent profile solution.

To understand how the profiles of pedagogical dynamics were associated with educators' perceived quality of the organization of the ECEC environment (Research Question 2), we used a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_002865). Participants were assigned to the latent profile with the highest posterior probability of membership (i.e., the most-likely profile assignment), and this categorical profile membership variable was used as a grouping variable. Since the dimensions of perceived quality of the educational environment organization were expected to be interrelated, MANCOVA was considered a more appropriate approach, since it accounts for their shared variance and reduces the risk of Type I error associated with multiple univariate tests. Profile membership was included as the independent variable, and the dimensions of perceived organizational quality were the dependent variables. Educators' socio-professional characteristics were included as covariates. Pillai's trace (V) was used to evaluate multivariate effects. When significant multivariate effects were observed, follow-up univariate ANOVAs (F) were performed, and post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction were conducted to identify differences between profiles. Partial eta squared (η_p²) and observed power (π) were reported as measures of effect size and statistical power, respectively.

As a sensitivity analysis, we also examined differences in educational environment organization quality across profiles using the manual BCH procedure in Mplus to account for classification uncertainty. BCH weights derived from the original four-profile solution were used to preserve the latent profile classification while accounting for classification error. The six dimensions of educational environment organization quality were included as distal outcomes and regressed on the same covariates included in the primary MANCOVA. Adjusted pairwise contrasts between the profiles were compared with the pattern obtained in the primary analyses.

3 Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all study variables are presented in Supplementary Table S1. Mean perceived quality values were mostly between 5 and 6, except for outdoor spaces, which had the lowest perceived quality, with values under 5. Regarding pedagogical dynamics, most educators describe their flow as more stimulating and orderly, and less chaotic and repetitive. They also describe a balance between children/adult agency and between indoor and outdoor activities. Chaotic and repetitive flow, the prevalence of adult agency, and the prevalence of indoor activities were associated with a lower perceived quality of the educational environment organization in several dimensions.

3.1 Educators' profiles of pedagogical dynamics

To identify groups of educators that differed in their pedagogical profiles regarding routine flow, children's agency, and indoor/outdoor space use, we estimated a series of LPA models with between 1 and 6 profiles (Models 1 through 6). Model selection was based on the joint consideration of statistical fit indices, classification quality, parsimony, and the substantive interpretability of the resulting profiles. Supplementary Table S2 provides the fit statistics for each model, and Supplementary Figure S1 displays the three-, four-, and five-profile solutions to facilitate comparison of the profile configurations. We considered the four-profile solution (Model 4) the most appropriate because Model 5 showed a non-significant adjusted LMR test (p = 369), indicating that the five-profile model did not significantly improve fit over the four-profile solution. The six-profile solution (Model 6) was likewise not supported by the adjusted LMR test (p = .270). Model 4 also showed a significant adjusted LMR test statistic (p = .004), indicating a better fit than the three-profile solution.

The interpretation of the solutions further supported the selection of the four-profile model. Although the three-profile solution showed somewhat higher classification accuracy (entropy = .880; ALCP = .929) than the four-profile solution (entropy = .809; ALCP = .850), the addition of a fourth profile revealed a substantively distinct intermediate configuration of pedagogical dynamics that was not differentiated in the three-profile model. In contrast, the five-profile solution primarily further differentiated patterns already represented in the four-profile solution, without yielding a comparably distinct and theoretically informative configuration (See Supplementary Figure S1). Thus, the four-profile solution was considered the most parsimonious balance of statistical support, adequate classification quality, and substantive differentiation of pedagogically meaningful profiles. Additionally, for the selected solution, all 250 final-stage optimizations converged to the same log-likelihood value, supporting the solution's stability.

One of the identified profiles in Model 4 included a relatively small proportion of educators (n = 11, slightly above 1% of the sample). This profile was retained because it represented a conceptually meaningful and distinct pattern of pedagogical dynamics that was also evident across the alternative solutions. The profile showed a consistent, interpretable configuration of indicators that clearly differed from the other profiles, suggesting the presence of a small but theoretically relevant subgroup of educators. In addition, the entropy value of this Model, as well as the ALCP values, showed that cases could be appropriately allocated to the correct latent profile with adequate classification quality.

Profile 1, which comprised the smallest number of educators (n = 11), was characterized by lower levels of orderly, predictability, and stimulant routine flow and relatively higher levels of chaotic and repetitive patterns (around the midpoint of the scale) (See Figure 1 and Table 4). This profile thus reflects a less structured, more unstable organization of daily activities. In terms of agency, educators in this profile reported moderate levels of adults' agency (between 4 and 5), a low prevalence of activities proposed by children, and a low balance between activities proposed by adults and children in collaboration, indicating a strongly adult-directed approach. Furthermore, educators in this profile described their use of spaces as primarily indoor, with limited engagement in outdoor contexts, whether as distinct learning environments or as extensions of indoor activities. Based on its overall pattern, this profile was labeled the Constrained-Fragmented Profile. This label reflects the combination of more constrained opportunities for children's participation (adults' agency), less integrated use of pedagogical spaces (indoor prevalence), and a less coherent organization of routine flow (unstable flow) observed across the three pedagogical dynamics.

Table 4. Raw scores mean values of pedagogical dynamics for each profile.

Means were labeled alphabetically from lowest (a) to highest (d). Means labeled with the same letter were not significantly different, whereas means labeled with different letters were significantly different from each other according to the Games-Howell post hoc test at α = .003.

Profile 2 was characterized by a generally balanced and moderate pattern across all dimensions. Educators reported intermediate levels of orderly, predictable, stimulant and repetitive routine flow, alongside low levels of chaotic flow. Their practices reflected a tendency towards a balanced distribution of agency between children and adults, as well as a relatively balanced use of indoor and outdoor contexts, although they did not reach high levels in any dimension (See Figure 1 and Table 4). For ease of interpretation, this profile was labeled the Balanced-Neutral Profile. This label reflects its relatively balanced scores across the three pedagogical dynamics, with no strong emphasis on any pattern of routine flow, children's agency, or the use of indoor and outdoor environments, reflecting the absence of a clearly differentiated pedagogical orientation across the three dimensions.

Profile 3 was the most common profile among the educators in the sample (see Table 4). Educators in this profile characterized their contexts as having the highest levels of orderly and predictable routines (close to 6), alongside high levels of stimulant flow (above 6). In contrast, chaotic flow was low (around 2), while repetitive flow remained at moderate levels (between 4 and 5). This profile also presented the highest values across all profiles in the balance between children's and adults' agency (above 6), as well as relatively high levels of adults' (close to 5) and children's agency. Regarding the use of space, educators in this profile reported the highest levels across all indicators, including indoor prevalence, outdoor prevalence, differentiated use of indoor and outdoor spaces, and continuity between indoor and outdoor activities. A high level of balance between the use of indoor and outdoor spaces was also observed (above 6). The combination of characteristics observed in this profile supports its interpretation as a Collaborative-Integrated Profile. This label reflects the convergence of collaborative pedagogical relationships with a coherent organization of routines and learning environments, resulting in a highly integrated pattern of pedagogical dynamics.

Profile 4 was characterized by a more differentiated pattern across dimensions. Educators in this profile reported the lowest levels of chaotic flow (close to 1) and repetitive flow (around 3), alongside the highest levels of stimulant flow (See Figure 1 and Table 4). Levels of orderly and predictable flow were moderate (ranging from 4 to 5). In terms of agency, this profile showed the highest levels of children's agency (close to 6), the lowest levels of adult agency (around 3), and a relatively high balance between children's and adults' agency, although not as pronounced as in Profile 3. Regarding the use of space, Profile 4 showed the lowest levels of indoor prevalence (between 3 and 4), while displaying levels comparable to Profile 3 in outdoor prevalence, balance in the use of indoor and outdoor spaces, and continuity between indoor and outdoor activities. Slightly lower values than Profile 3 were observed for differentiated indoor and outdoor activities. Based on its distinctive configuration of pedagogical dynamics, this group was labeled the Participatory-Dynamic Profile. The label reflects the prominence of children's agency, stimulating routine flow, lower reliance on routinized and adult-directed activities, and extensive engagement with outdoor learning environments. Together, these characteristics portray a pedagogical organization in which children's participation plays a particularly prominent role in shaping everyday experiences.

Associations between sociodemographic and socio-professional characteristics and latent profile membership were examined using the R3STEP procedure in Mplus, with adjusted significance levels to account for multiple comparisons. Few significant differences were observed across profiles. No significant differences were found in educational qualifications, sector, number of children (at either the classroom or school level), classroom heterogeneity, or pedagogical models implemented. Descriptive characteristics for each profile are presented in Table 5. All covariance estimates are reported in Supplementary Table S3.

Table 5. Educators’ characteristics for each profile.

Differences were observed in professional role, with a higher proportion of participants holding coordination roles in Profile 4 than in Profile 2 (OR = 0.44, SE = .337, p = .009) and Profile 3 (OR=0.44, SE = .340, p = .045). Specifically, compared with Profile 4, the odds of holding a coordination role were 56% lower in Profile 2 and in Profile 3. A marginally significant difference was also observed between Profile 2 and Profile 4 in professional experience, with educators in Profile 4 reporting greater experience (OR = 1.033, SE = .012, p = .057).

3.2 Relationship between pedagogical dynamics profiles and perceived quality of the organization of the ECEC environment

To assess how educators' pedagogical dynamics profiles were associated with their perceived quality of the organization of the educational environment in ECEC contexts (Research Question 2), we used a MANCOVA. We control educators’ experience, sector, coordinators' function, heterogeneity in children's ages, and the number of children in the center, given their relation to educators' perceptions of quality in the organization of the environment (See Supplementary Table S4).

Because the Constrained-Fragmented Profile (Profile 1) comprised a relatively small proportion of the sample (n = 11, 1.4%), comparisons involving this group should be interpreted with caution due to the large standard errors and limited precision of the estimated means. Notably, a similarly small group with a comparable indicator pattern was identified across the alternative three-, four-, and five-profile solutions, supporting the consistency of this configuration across model specifications. Nevertheless, its small size precludes firm conclusions about its stability in the wider population. To avoid overinterpreting potentially unstable estimates, the main analyses were conducted using the remaining three profiles. Consequently, inferential conclusions regarding differences in perceived educational environment organization quality are restricted to Profiles 2–4. For transparency, the results, including the Constrained-Fragmented Profile (Profile 1), are reported in the Supplementary Tables S5, S6, and S7. Nevertheless, the descriptive statistics suggest that educators in this profile reported consistently low levels of perceived educational environment organization quality across all dimensions, including indoor organization (M = 3.14, SD = 0.92), outdoor organization (M = 1.89, SD = 0.81), routines (M = 3.49, SD = 1.06), participation (M = 2.38, SD = 1.14), professional collaboration (M = 2.25, SD = 0.93), and collaboration with the center leadership (M = 1.97, SD = 1.34).

Analyses showed that profile membership was related to educators' perceptions of quality in the organization of the environment (Table 6), even after controlling their socio-professional characteristics. Significant differences were observed in all quality dimensions (See Table 7), but the associations were stronger for the perceived quality of routines and weaker for the collaboration with leadership.

Table 6. Multivariate tests for educators’ perceptions of the quality of the organization.

N = 674 after removing 72 educators who indicated they did not know how leadership perceived the organization of the ECEC environment. Dependent variables: Educators’ perceptions of the quality of the organization (indoor, outdoor, routines, participation, collaboration with the team, and collaboration with the leadership).

Table 7. Between-subjects effect for each of the dimensions.

N = 674 after removing 72 educators who indicated not knowing leadership's perceptions about the organization of the ECEC environment.

The results reveal clear differences across latent profiles in the perceived quality of the educational environment (See Table 8). Profiles 3 and 4 consistently exhibit the highest mean scores across all dimensions, indicating a more positive perception of the educational environment. These two profiles generally do not differ significantly from each other, suggesting similar patterns of functioning. However, an important exception emerges in the dimension of collaboration with leadership, where Profile 3 shows significantly higher values than Profile 4, indicating stronger perceived collaboration with leadership within this group. This difference may partly reflect the composition of Profile 3, which includes a higher proportion of leaders.

Table 8. Mean estimates for educators’ perceived quality of the organization.

N = 674 after removing 72 educators who indicated not knowing leadership's perceptions about the organization of the ECEC environment. Means were labeled alphabetically from lowest (a) to highest (c). Means labeled with the same letter were not significantly different, whereas means labeled with different letters were significantly different from each other according to the Games-Howell post hoc test at α = .003. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Experience = 25.57, Sector = 1.75; Coordinator Function = 0.15; Age Heterogeneity = 2.56; Number of children in the Preschool = 2.00.

In contrast, Profile 2 consistently presents the lowest scores across all dimensions, clearly distinguishing it from the remaining profiles and reflecting a less favorable perception of the educational environment. Profile 2 occupies an intermediate position, with scores systematically higher than Profile 1 but lower than Profiles 3 and 4.

Sensitivity analyses using the BCH procedure to account for classification uncertainty yielded a substantively similar pattern of differences across profiles (see Supplementary Table S8), supporting the robustness of the findings obtained from the primary MANCOVA. Furthermore, given the observed differences in coordinators' functions across profiles, we conducted an additional sensitivity analysis to examine whether differences in perceived quality of the educational environment organization could be influenced by the presence of educators holding administrative or coordination roles. The MANCOVA was therefore repeated after excluding these educators. The pattern of results remained substantively unchanged (See Supplementary Table S9).

4 Discussion

The aim of the present study was to identify profiles of pedagogical dynamics – specifically routine flow, child agency, and the use of indoor and outdoor spaces – in Portuguese ECEC contexts and to examine how these profiles relate to educators' perceptions of the quality of the educational environment organization. Our findings suggest that there are distinct pedagogical dynamics profiles that combine routine, agency, and use of space, showing that these dimensions do not function in isolation, but in combination – they represent different pedagogical logics. Four different profiles were identified: Constrained-Fragmented, Balanced-Neutral, Collaborative-Integrated, and Participatory-Dynamic. Educators in each profile have different perceptions about the quality of their ECEC environment organization.

4.1 The constrained-fragmented profile

Educators in the Constrained-Fragmented Profile (Profile 1) characterized their context as having a less coherent routine flow (more chaotic and less stimulating), more constrained opportunities for children's agency, and a predominantly indoor-centered use of space. The Constrained-Fragmented Profile suggests a pedagogical organization in which children's opportunities for participation and the integration of learning contexts are more limited, potentially restricting the coherence of children's everyday experiences. Still, this is a very uncommon Profile: only 1% of educators were classified into this Profile. Therefore, the Constrained–Fragmented Profile should be interpreted with particular caution. Although a similarly small subgroup with a comparable configuration emerged across alternative profile solutions, suggesting some consistency across model specifications, its stability and generalizability require replication in other samples. Moreover, because it was excluded from the primary inferential analyses, the present study cannot infer the association between membership in this profile and perceived educational environment organization quality. Nevertheless, the descriptive pattern was remarkably consistent: educators in this profile reported the lowest perceived quality of the organization of the environment across all dimensions, suggesting an association between the identified pedagogical dynamics and their perceptions of the quality of the ECEC environment as observed among the other profiles. A more chaotic and less stimulating routine could be associated with a lower-quality organization of time. As previous research suggests, an inconsistent or unpredictable routine makes it difficult for children to anticipate daily events, leading to disorientation and a lack of security because they do not know what is expected of them (Santos, 2017). In repetitive or fragmented routines, time may be treated as a mere recipient of episodes rather than as a pedagogical tool, as Bondioli and Nigito (2011) suggest. This leads to a loss of educational intentionality, in which experiences are not meaningfully linked, and significant episodes that allow children to build a sense of continuity are missed (Pereira et al., 2025; Santos, 2017).

The predominance of adult-led activities in the Constrained-Fragmented Profile could also be negatively associated with the quality of the ECEC environment, as it prioritizes the “adult agenda” over children's individual rhythms and needs, as observed in a previous qualitative study (Pereira et al., 2025). Constraining children's agency is often seen as a byproduct of “schoolification”, an attempt to mimic the primary school environment where children sit in rows as passive recipients of instruction (Adlerstein and Cortazar, 2022; Kangas et al., 2021). When power is not shared and children have fewer opportunities to make choices, their development of self-regulation, initiative, and confidence as decision-makers is weakened (Kangas et al., 2016). On the other hand, constraining agency reduces children's involvement and can lead to “off-task” behaviors or goal-less wandering (Berti et al., 2019; Vitiello et al., 2012), which could explain why these educators in this profile also describe their routines as more chaotic than those in other profiles. The problem does not seem to be a lack of action on the part of the educator, but rather a lack of children's engagement: Children are more enthusiastically and more complexly engaged during child-directed activities (Vitiello et al., 2012). High-level involvement, characterized by sustained concentration, energy, creativity, and persistence, occurs when the activity aligns with the child's internal interests and needs. The educator's role, then, involves observing attentively, creating challenging environments, and intervening to deepen existing involvement, while safeguarding the child's agency and protagonism (Laevers et al., 2005).

The lower perceived quality of the ECEC environment observed in the Constrained-Fragmented Profile – not only in outdoor spaces, but also in indoor spaces, routines, and participation – may also be related to the almost exclusive use of indoor spaces, which leaves the extensive pedagogical potential of outdoor environments underutilized (Bento and Costa, 2022). In these situations, children are deprived of the unique stimuli found in nature – such as natural materials and mixed settings – which research suggests they perceive as more stimulating and less boring than manufactured indoor environments (Santos, 2017). It is possible that educators from environments that fail to integrate indoor and outdoor contexts perceive these settings as having lower organizational quality because they lack the continuous flow and complementarity required for a holistic educational experience.

In summary, the pedagogical profile characterized by repetitive flows, adult-led activities, and a high prevalence of indoor activities is perceived by educators as lower quality across all dimensions of the ECEC environment. An important question emerging from these findings is why a small group of educators report pedagogical dynamics that appear less coherent with high-quality educational environment organization. Although the present study cannot address this question, one possible explanation lies in the broader organizational conditions that support pedagogical practice. Educators within this profile also reported the lowest levels of professional collaboration and collaboration with center leadership in the organization of the educational environment, suggesting that constrained and fragmented pedagogical dynamics may not simply reflect individual practices, but may also be associated with limited opportunities for shared reflection, pedagogical support, and collective decision-making. As Pereira et al. (2025) observed, institutional and adult schedules sometimes affect routines and children's participation. Future research should examine whether collaborative professional cultures and pedagogical leadership enable the development of more coherent pedagogical dynamics.

4.2 The balanced-neutral profile

The Balanced-Neutral Profile (Profile 2) was characterized by moderate levels across all pedagogical dynamics and intermediate perceptions of the quality of the educational environment organization. This profile suggests a relatively balanced pedagogical configuration, one in which routine flow, children's agency, and the use of indoor and outdoor environments coexist without any single dynamic dominating the others. It therefore does not point to a clearly differentiated orientation. This configuration may reflect the complexity of everyday ECEC practice, in which educators continuously negotiate multiple pedagogical demands without consistently emphasizing specific dynamics of educational organization. Consistent with the observed profile pattern, educators in this profile also reported intermediate levels of perceived educational environment organization quality, with relatively more positive perceptions of indoor organization, routines, and professional collaboration, but lower ratings for children's participation and the organization of outdoor environments. This was the second most prevalent profile, with the findings indicating that a substantial proportion of educators reported this relatively moderate and balanced configuration. One possible interpretation is that educators in this profile already draw on high-quality ECEC practices. Yet these practices do not necessarily add up to a distinct pedagogical approach that would intentionally promote children's participation and the pedagogical use of indoor and outdoor environments. Both are now considered crucial to quality (Kernan, 2023; Sandseter et al., 2020; Van Liempd et al., 2020). However, the present study did not assess educators' intentional articulation of or reflection on these practices, and this interpretation therefore remains to be examined.

From the perspective of pedagogical intentionality (Lopes da Silva et al., 2016), the Balance-Neutral configuration may raise questions about how educators articulate these different pedagogical practices in their everyday work. One possible interpretation is that educators in this profile have already adopted several practices associated with high-quality ECEC but have not yet intentionally articulated these practices into a more differentiated pedagogical approach. Importantly, however, this study did not directly assess pedagogical intentionality, reflective articulation, or the processes through which educators integrate different practices. It is therefore not possible to determine whether these moderate levels reflect a pedagogical approach that has not yet been intentionally articulated through collaborative reflection or are shaped by other individual and organizational conditions. Although educators in this profile tended to report slightly fewer years of professional experience than those in the Participatory-Dynamic Profile, this difference was marginal and should be interpreted with caution. This pattern could nevertheless be explored in future research to examine whether and how the articulation of pedagogical dynamics may develop alongside professional experience and opportunities for reflective practice. At the same time, other factors, such as pedagogical beliefs, professional learning opportunities, organizational culture, or pedagogical leadership, may also contribute to this configuration (e.g., Gariboldi and Pugnaghi, 2018; Peltoperä et al., 2023). Future research should examine these alternative explanations and, ideally through longitudinal designs, explore whether and how educators' configurations of pedagogical dynamics change over time.

4.3 The collaborative-integrated and participatory-dynamic profiles

The Collaborative-Integrated Profile (Profile 3) was the most prevalent profile in the present sample. Educators in this profile showed strong emphasis on shared pedagogical decision-making and the coherent integration of routines and learning environments. They reported a highly structured yet stimulating routine flow, balanced child-adult agency, and extensive pedagogical connections between indoor and outdoor contexts, using them for different purposes and to provide continuity for activities that started in one space and continued in another. Educators in this profile also perceived high quality in the organization of their ECEC environment, with results similar to those observed in the Participatory-Dynamic Profile (Profile 4), despite differences in the configuration of their pedagogical dynamics. Educators in the Participatory-Dynamic Profile report a stimulating routine flow with only moderate predictability and repetitiveness, a prominence of children's agency with reduced reliance on adult-directed activities, and a strong orientation toward outdoor learning environments. Collectively, these characteristics suggest a pedagogical organization that particularly emphasizes children's participation and movement across learning contexts.

The Collaborative-Integrated Profile and the Participatory-Dynamic Profile have some similarities that could explain their similar levels of perceived quality. First, both have very high levels of stimulant flow. These suggest that time is used as a tool in educational management, facilitating significant episodes in which children can meaningfully process their experiences, as suggested by Bondioli and Nigito (2011). Second, they both describe a higher frequency of activities that balance adult and children's agency in collaboration. This dynamic seems reflected in the higher level observed in the quality dimension that assesses the children's and family's participation in the organization of the environment. Action research shows that involving children in the design of their educational spaces enhances their initiative, confidence, and negotiation skills with adults, thereby improving the overall quality of the ECEC environment (Berti et al., 2019). Third, both profiles showed a greater balance between indoor and outdoor use and high continuity between the two spaces. Outdoor spaces offer unique affordances for sensory exploration and risk management that, when integrated with indoor learning, maximize the “third teacher” potential of the entire physical environment (Berti et al., 2019, p. 992).

But the Collaborative-Integrated Profile had a more ordered, repetitive, and predictable flow. High process quality is achieved when the routine flow is orderly and predictable, providing children with the emotional security and stability needed to navigate their day autonomously (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011). However, the Participatory-Dynamic Profile also reported high levels of perceived quality of the educational environment despite being less predictable and less repetitive. Importantly, this profile was also characterized by the lowest levels of chaos, suggesting that less routinized pedagogical dynamics do not necessarily imply less organized environments. Rather, these findings support the idea highlighted by different authors (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011; Neves et al., 2017) that high-quality routine flow is achieved through a balance between predictability and responsiveness, providing children with temporal continuity while remaining open to individual rhythms and emerging learning opportunities.

An equally interesting distinction between the two highest-quality profiles concerns the role of children's and adults' agency. The Participatory-Dynamic Profile was characterized by the highest levels of children's agency together with the lowest prevalence of adult-led activities. This pattern may reflect educators' greater willingness to adapt or even give up planned activities in response to children's interests, emotions, and emerging learning opportunities, as observed by Peltoperä et al. (2023), recognizing children as active protagonists in their own learning rather than passive recipients of instruction (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007; Pianta et al., 2016).

In contrast, the Collaborative-Integrated Profile did not reduce adults' agency. Instead, educators reported simultaneously high levels of adult and children's agency, suggesting that children's participation does not necessarily require adults to withdraw from the pedagogical process. Rather, agency appears to be shared and co-constructed, with educators maintaining an active pedagogical role while creating meaningful opportunities for children's participation. This interpretation is consistent with evidence showing that indoor spaces characterized by a balance between child-initiated and teacher-directed activities provide rich opportunities for both socio-emotional development and cognitive learning (Early et al., 2010). While child-initiated experiences promote autonomy, engagement, and socio-emotional development, teacher-guided interactions create opportunities for scaffolding, language development, and sustained shared thinking (Early et al., 2010; Fuligni et al., 2012; Morales-Murillo et al., 2020). Taken together, these findings suggest that high-quality pedagogical dynamics are not defined by the predominance of either adult or child agency, but by the intentional ways in which both forms of agency are organized and negotiated within everyday pedagogical practice.

A further distinction between the two profiles concerns the relative use of learning spaces. Compared with the Collaborative-Integrated Profile, educators in the Participatory-Dynamic Profile reported a lower prevalence of indoor activities, while maintaining similarly high levels of use of outdoor space, balance and continuity between indoor and outdoor environments. This greater emphasis on outdoor learning from the educators in the Participatory-Dynamic Profile may provide additional opportunities for children's initiative, exploration and decision-making, which are frequently associated with outdoor pedagogies (Tonge et al., 2019). However, both profiles reported similarly high levels of continuity and balance use between indoor and outdoor contexts. The similarities between the two profiles in the quality of the educational environment organization may depend not simply on spending more time outdoors but on intentionally connecting learning experiences across contexts.

4.4 Final considerations

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, both pedagogical dynamics and educational environment organization quality were assessed through educators' self-reports, capturing educators' perceptions rather than directly observed practices. Although Harman's single-factor test did not indicate a dominant common-method factor, using the same source and method to assess both constructs may still have contributed to shared-method variance and potentially inflated their associations. In addition, some conceptual proximity between the pedagogical dynamics and perceived-quality dimensions may have contributed to the observed associations, although the two sets of measures capture distinct aspects of educational practice. Even though educators' perceptions provide valuable insight into how professionals understand and intentionally organize their educational environments, future studies should combine self-report measures with observational approaches and/or multiple informants to examine the extent to which these profiles are reflected in everyday pedagogical practice. Moreover, while the person-centered approach identified distinct configurations of pedagogical dynamics, it does not explain how these configurations are enacted in daily practice. Qualitative studies, including observations and reflective interviews with educators, could provide a deeper understanding of how different pedagogical profiles organize routines, negotiate children's participation, and connect indoor and outdoor environments, as well as the organizational and relational conditions that support these practices. Such approaches would also help explore how pedagogical intentionality is translated into practice and how these dynamics are experienced by children and other stakeholders. Finally, the identified pedagogical profiles reflect the characteristics of this sample of Portuguese ECEC educators and should not be assumed to generalize to other educational systems or cultural contexts. As latent profiles are sample-dependent, future studies should examine whether similar configurations emerge in different countries and ECEC systems, thereby contributing to a broader understanding of how pedagogical dynamics are organized across contexts.

The findings suggest that different configurations of self-reported pedagogical dynamics are associated with different patterns of educators' perceived quality of educational environment organization. Notably, the Collaborative-Integrated and Participatory-Dynamic profiles, despite their different configurations, were both associated with relatively positive perceptions across several dimensions of educational environment quality. This pattern suggests that positive perceptions of quality may be associated with more than one configuration of routine flow, children's agency, and the use of learning spaces. From the perspective of pedagogical intentionality (Lopes da Silva et al., 2016) and relational pedagogy (Liang et al., 2026), these associations offer theoretically plausible indications that routine, agency, and the pedagogical use of indoor and outdoor environments are interconnected and that these interconnections may relate to how educators and children co-construct educational experiences. Although the present findings cannot establish that integrating these dynamics produces higher-quality environments, they support further consideration of quality as potentially involving a negotiated and reflective process in which different dimensions of pedagogical practice may be meaningfully connected (Bondioli and Nigito, 2011; Dahlberg et al., 2024).

In conclusion, professional development may benefit from supporting educators to reflect on the relationships among routine flow, children's agency, and the pedagogical use of learning environments as a unified system, rather than treating them as independent dimensions of practice. More broadly, the present study highlights the value of examining configurations of pedagogical dynamics rather than isolated practices. Future research should investigate whether and how the articulation of these dynamics contributes to educational quality, using observational, longitudinal, and multi-informant approaches that can extend beyond educators' perceptions.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI-assisted writing tools (Grammarly) were used solely to support grammar, spelling, and language editing. All scientific content, interpretations, and conclusions were developed and reviewed by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1956235/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Elsie Lindy Olan, University of Central Florida, United States

Reviewed by: Eleni Sotiropoulou, University of West Attica, Greece

Herdi Handoko, PGRI University of Yogyakarta, Indonesia