Introduction and problem

In the 3-to-6-year span —kindergarten, preschool, CENDI, infant school— a package of artifacts has been installed that claim to count as support for the assembly, for circle time, for the morning meeting and for the morning circle: a GenAI of circle time scripts, morning meeting scripts, morning circle lesson packs or carpet-time activity banks by prompt; a classifier, an ML system or a camera that assigns an engagement score, attention score, participation quality score, circle compliance or meeting minutes on-task; a dashboard of circle minutes, participation rate or morning meeting fidelity; a robot or an agent that directs the assembly substituting for the adult; and a ranking of participation quality by vision/NLP without situated judgment. The artifacts make it possible to display that the center «already does assembly with AI». The leap —from script, score, count, director-robot or ranking to claiming support— is not authorized when an adult and a group construct a dialogic space of greeting, voice turns, listening, agreements, participation and belonging to the collective, not an «engagement score» (Sembiante, Bengochea y Gort, 2025; Koczela y Carver, 2023; Karan y Tantekin Erden, 2026; Giray, 2026).

The thesis is restrictive: those artifacts do not constitute support for assembly / circle time in early childhood. In early childhood education that practice develops when the adult and the group hold an everyday rite of gathering and a professional interprets the episode with situated judgment (Sembiante et al., 2025; Rönnerman y Nordberg, 2024; Koczela y Carver, 2023; Chun, 2024); not a GenAI of scripts, an engagement score, a dashboard of minutes, a robot that directs the assembly nor a ranking of participation quality. AI may support the adult's preparation and reflection in a subordinate way (Lee, Lee y Yoon, 2025; Jambunathan, 2025; Edwards, 2023; Giray, 2026); it must not substitute the relational craft of the circle nor convert participation into a surveillance metric. Sembiante et al. (2025) show the morning circle as a transmodal community of practice, not as a recipe. Koczela y Carver (2023) document high frequency of circle time in Montessori 3–6 classrooms and, at the same time, misalignment of many habitual activities with children's preferences and best practices. Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026) explore the circle as a space of participation rights. That authorizes asking what was measured: a participation quality score —not the practice when the group takes the floor and a professional interprets the episode.

The problem is aggravated by ten category confusions. First: it is not free play (25 August): here there is a collective rite. Second: it is not guided play (14 September): the axis is the dialogic circle. Third: it is not cooperative (15 September): there may be agreements in the circle; the axis is not the shared goal among peers. Fourth: it is not outdoor, loose parts, sand, water, playdough nor risky play. Fifth: it is not symbolic play nor spatial/block play. Sixth: it is not co-regulation, SST, ToM, prosocial nor peer-conflict/turn-taking —there may be voice turns IN the assembly; the axis is not conflict nor the turn—. Seventh: it is not orality, literacy, dialogic reading nor joint attention —Roding y Che Mustafa (2022), Akbar et al. (2022) and Rönnerman y Nordberg (2024) are read for the circle—. Eighth: it is not generic voice-participation nor inclusion as exclusive axis —Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026), Chun (2024) and Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026) are read for circle time as space—. Ninth: it is not belonging as exclusive axis —Tekerci y Yildirim (2026) is a boundary with morning routines and belonging—. Tenth: it is not SEL, CLASS, formative assessment, FE, numeracy, STEM, agent harness, initial teacher education, leadership, transition, family-school, privacy, multilingualism, teacher well-being nor documentation. The artifacts fit on a slide; the episode in which a group greets, waits and agrees, does not. Contributions: separating craft and artifacts; examining marked cases; and offering four tests of support.

State of the art: situated practice vs artifact

It is useful to separate four strata that the market of «AI for circle time / morning meeting in early childhood education» usually mixes. The first is the construct from 3 to 6 years as situated relational practice: assembly / circle time / morning circle as an everyday space of greeting, voice turns, listening, agreements, participation and belonging to the collective —not when a score declares «there was engagement»— (Sembiante et al., 2025; Koczela y Carver, 2023; Karan y Tantekin Erden, 2026; Han, Lee y Kwon, 2022; Chun, 2024). The second is the craft —an adult who holds the circle without a recipe; co-teaching that orchestrates modalities; listening that is not scored; co-presence that interprets the episode, not only «there were circle minutes»— (Rönnerman y Nordberg, 2024; Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk, 2026; Roding y Che Mustafa, 2022). The third is the evidence of AI affordances, AI literacy, robots, teacher perceptions, GenAI teacher education and postdigital critique —without equating them to assembly pedagogy nor to a robot that directs the circle— (Su y Yang, 2022; Su y Zhong, 2022; Su, Ng y Chu, 2023; Edwards, 2022, 2023; Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim, 2024; Lee, Lee y Yoon, 2025; Jambunathan, 2025; Giray, 2026). The fourth is the framework of participation rights and of everyday rite: the young child takes the floor and belongs to the collective, and is not a vector of meeting minutes on-task nor the addressee of a director-agent (Karan y Tantekin Erden, 2026; Sembiante et al., 2025; Boyd y Edmiston, 2021, transfer). Inference: an engagement score does not greet nor wait for the turn; a circle held by an adult does. Su y Yang (2022) map AI without equating it to assembly. Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim (2024) propose incorporating robots, not substituting for the adult. Giray (2026) establishes that the authentic relationship is not replicated by a chatbot. Lee, Lee y Yoon (2025) find that teachers emphasize human interactions.

The verified systems measure objects distinct from the craft: transmodality in a bilingual morning circle (Sembiante et al., 2025); linguistic support with ELSA (Rönnerman y Nordberg, 2024); Montessori 3–6 practices (Koczela y Carver, 2023); the circle as a space of rights (Karan y Tantekin Erden, 2026; Chun, 2024); conceptions of teachers in training (Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk, 2026); meaning of the circle in a child- and play-centered classroom (Han et al., 2022); communication and vocabulary (Roding y Che Mustafa, 2022; Akbar et al., 2022); confidence at 5–6 (Maulida y Nugroho, 2025); democratic Morning Meeting in primary (Boyd y Edmiston, 2021, transfer). Tekerci y Yildirim (2026) anchor morning routines and belonging: boundary, not axis. Inference: a circle compliance does not repair the silence that the episode requires listening to. Edwards (2022, 2023) anchors the postdigital: AI is not a neutral add-on. Su, Ng y Chu (2023) map AI literacy, not a carpet-time lesson pack.

Review method

A critical narrative review was conducted, not a primary meta-analysis. The purpose was not to estimate a homogeneous effect size of the artifacts, but to articulate an argument of pedagogical category with verified sources. Inclusion criteria: (a) 2021–2026, with marked transfer when the sample does not equal 3–6 in an assembly classroom, is primary, is HRI/robot as framework, is AI curriculum or literacy, is teacher education, or is morning routines / belonging; (b) assembly, circle time, morning meeting, morning circle, participation in the circle, or AI in ECE / robots / GenAI / postdigital; (c) kindergarten, preschool, CENDI or 3–6, or explicit transfer; (d) peer-reviewed journal with DOI. Excluded as central object were axes already used in this series (free play, guided play, cooperative, outdoor/loose parts, symbolic, spatial, co-regulation, SST, ToM, prosocial, peer-conflict, mark-making, dialogic reading, SEL, CLASS, joint attention, orality and literacy as axes, generic voice-participation, inclusion and belonging as exclusive axes, well-being, formative assessment, FE, numeracy, STEM, agent harness, initial teacher education, leadership, transition and family-school). Roding y Che Mustafa (2022), Akbar et al. (2022) and Rönnerman y Nordberg (2024) are read for the circle. Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026), Chun (2024) and Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026) are read for circle time as space. Tekerci y Yildirim (2026) = belonging boundary. Boyd y Edmiston (2021) = primary: stage transfer. Jambunathan (2025) = teacher education: transfer. Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim (2024) = HRI framework, not a director-robot.

The search was executed on 17 September 2026 (slot 09:02 America/Mexico_City, weekday routine) on DOI pages, Crossref, Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, KU Journals and publisher sites. Each source was verified against fuentes.md and crossref_check.json. Empirical finding, framework and pedagogical inference were distinguished. No N, d, r, AUC or DOI was invented: when an artifact lacks a verified trial as a display package in CENDI 3–6, it is discussed as a category ceiling. Twenty-one sources from the verified corpus were used.

Case 1. Artifacts do not constitute support

Su y Yang (2022), Su y Zhong (2022) and Su, Ng y Chu (2023) saturate the ceiling of artifacts when AI in ECE is presented as if it were support for the assembly. Su y Yang (2022) —a scoping of seventeen studies, 1995–2021— map tools and impacts of AI for children (AI concepts, robotics, creativity, literacy, computational thinking), not that an engagement score cultivates a dialogic space of greeting and voice turns. Su y Zhong (2022) propose an AI curriculum for kindergarten and a social robot as a learning companion of AI principles: a curricular framework, not assembly. Su, Ng y Chu (2023) review AI literacy in early childhood education —challenges, opportunities, knowledge barriers and guidelines—: the gap is of adult mediation and of curriculum, not of a carpet-time activity bank by prompt. Inference: «high engagement score = there was support» is a ceiling of analytics. A circle compliance can coexist with an absence of listening. The grammar of display inverts the sequence: first the classifier or the GenAI of scripts is activated; then it is declared that «there is already morning meeting with AI».

Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim (2024) explore a practical framework for incorporating AI humanoid robots in early childhood education —appropriate concepts, child–AI relationship, activities and challenges—: an HRI framework, not a trial that the robot directs the assembly substituting for the adult. Transfer: the object is the incorporation of robots, not the pedagogy of the circle. Lee, Lee y Yoon (2025) —six early childhood teachers; 20–30-minute interviews— find that the six considered AI useful for learning and classroom management, but all emphasized human interactions and expressed concern about training and about AI making the teacher obsolete. Status: qualitative finding of perceptions. Inference: that voice prevents selling an agent that directs the morning meeting in 3–6. Jambunathan (2025) summarizes the use of GenAI (ChatGPT, Claude, Dall-E, among others) in early childhood teacher education: preparation of the adult. Setting transfer: it is not a trial of circle time in CENDI 3–6. Marked inference: producing a morning circle lesson pack by prompt may be subordinate preparation; support begins when the adult and the group hold the circle, not when the script closes the greeting as a recipe.

Edwards (2022) offers concepts for ECEC in the postdigital: a framework, not a display package. Edwards (2023) situates AI in ECEC in that framework: it is not a neutral technical add-on to the kindergarten. Giray (2026) argues that the role of AI in ECE for 0–7 years remains highly contested and that high-quality development requires authentic relationships that AI does not replicate: a critical framework. Restrictive inference: selling a robot or an agent that directs the assembly in 3–6 confuses product with craft and erases the adult co-presence that the construct demands. The artifacts lack, in the verified corpus, trials of pedagogical equivalence with the craft in CENDI 3–6; no d, r or AUC of «support» is invented. They share a grammar of substitution: the GenAI closes the rite; the score speaks for listening; the dashboard substitutes observation; the robot erases the adult; the ranking converts taking the floor into a percentile without judgment. Jambunathan (2025) situates GenAI on the side of the adult's education, not of who greets the group. Koczela y Carver (2023) and Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026) measure human practice and interpretation, not an attention score.

Case 2. The relational craft in the preschool

The floor of the craft is not a score: it is an episode in which the adult and the group of 3 to 6 years arrange themselves in a circle, greet one another, take turns of voice, listen, agree and recognize themselves as a collective, and a professional interprets what occurs without substituting that rite with a recipe (Sembiante et al., 2025; Rönnerman y Nordberg, 2024; Koczela y Carver, 2023; Karan y Tantekin Erden, 2026; Chun, 2024). Inference: there is support when that practice is protected; not when an engagement score, a GenAI of scripts or a ranking is displayed. The craft is recognized in the episode: the adult holds, invites, waits and yields; the robot or the GenAI, if they appear, are subordinate means, not directors of the gathering.

Sembiante, Bengochea y Gort (2025) saturate the anchor of morning circle as a community of practice. Fortnightly recordings of co-teachers in three preschool classrooms of Spanish/English dual language bilingual education. Finding: there is variation and strategic coordination of transmodalities according to the focus of the circle (songs; numeracy or literacy; participation norms); the collaborative effort creates a community of practice. Status: qualitative empirical finding in preschool. Distinction: it is cited for the morning circle, not as an article of multilingualism nor of literacy. Inference: transmodality orchestrated by co-teachers ≠ a morning meeting script by prompt; participation norms constructed in the rite ≠ a dashboard participation rate.

Rönnerman y Nordberg (2024) saturate the anchor of circle time as a practice of linguistic support between teachers and children, with the structured ELSA model, in action research in preschool. Status: finding/framework of situated practice, not a closed language pack. Distinction: it is read for the circle, not as orality. Inference: structuring circle time to sustain language does not authorize a classifier of meeting minutes on-task. Koczela y Carver (2023) saturate the anchor of real practices in Montessori 3–6 classrooms. Qualtrics survey; 276 responses from the 50 United States. Finding: 92 % have circle time every day or most days; most hold it 20 minutes or less; the most common activities include show-and-tell, calendar, vocabulary, Grace and Courtesy, read-aloud, dance, snack, conversation, stories and birthdays. They find that many do not align with the preferences of children and guides nor with best practices, and they invite reconstructing circle time toward choice, will and joy. Status: empirical survey finding. Restrictive inference: high frequency ≠ morning meeting fidelity; a GenAI that packages calendar and show-and-tell closes the reconstruction that the craft demands; an engagement score does not distinguish the chosen circle from the compulsory one.

Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026) explore circle time as a space of participation rights in preschool classrooms. Status: qualitative empirical finding. Distinction: it is cited for the circle as space, not as generic voice-participation. Inference: a space of rights is not proven with a participation quality score nor with a ranking by vision/NLP. Chun (2024) —action research; 27 3-year-old children; about 24 weeks of sharing stories in circle-time— examines efforts and dilemmas so that three-year-olds participate with greater initiative. Finding: diverse forms of participation and new perspectives on sharing; making sense of the theme in everyday life; questioning the routine; encouraging understanding, feeling, thinking and listening; the teacher leads and, at the same time, listens. Status: empirical finding. Inference: 24 weeks of craft ≠ a circle time script; listening to three-year-olds ≠ a camera attention score.

Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026) examine conceptions and practices of circle time of teachers in training in Türkiye, between inclusive ideals and everyday realities. Status: empirical finding. Distinction: it is read for circle time, not as inclusion nor as initial teacher education. Inference: the ideals/realities tension is reflective craft; a morning meeting fidelity dashboard converts it into compliance. Han, Lee y Kwon (2022) examine experience and meaning of circle-time in a child- and play-centered classroom. Status: empirical finding. Distinction: it is cited for the meaning of the circle, not as free play nor guided play. Inference: the meaning that children and teachers attribute to the circle is not an engagement score.

Roding y Che Mustafa (2022) —a qualitative case in a private preschool in Selangor; two 5-year-old children, their mothers and the teacher; observation and interview— find interactive and child-centered activities (storytelling, play, questions) as morning practices for communication. Status: empirical finding of a small case. Inference: two children and one teacher ≠ a sample for a participation quality classifier. Akbar, Fatima y Unis (2022) —25 kindergarten students in Lahore; pre and post— report significant results in favor of circle time for vocabulary in communicative activities. Status: empirical pre-post finding. Distinction: it is read for the circle, not as literacy. Unrecovered t, d or p are not invented. Inference: vocabulary cultivated in the circle ≠ an activity bank by prompt. Maulida y Nugroho (2025) —one-group pretest-posttest; 24 5–6-year-old students at Islamic Kindergarten ANNUR Kedungringin— report that Morning Circle was effective for confidence, with an N-Gain of 0,611 (moderate category) according to the authors. Status: empirical finding of a single group, without a control. Distinction: it is cited for morning circle, not as SEL. Inference: an N-Gain from one group does not authorize a director-robot nor a ranking of participation quality.

Boyd y Edmiston (2021) respond with ethnographic data of Morning Meetings in two primary classrooms in the United States: democratic potential is cultivated through humanizing social practices of community building, over time and through activities that may also have an academic function. Stage transfer: primary, not CENDI 3–6. Marked inference: the humanizing Morning Meeting does not translate to 3–6 as a morning meeting script nor as a fidelity dashboard; if anything transfers, it is that the rite is understood in time and in the community, not in a prompt. Taken together, none of these systems signs a GenAI of scripts, an engagement/attention/participation quality score, a dashboard of minutes, a director-robot nor a ranking by vision/NLP. The evidence is real in its domain; «score / script / robot / ranking = support for the assembly» is an illegitimate category inference.

Case 3. Category boundaries

Ten boundaries protect the axis. First: free play (25 August) —Sembiante et al. (2025) and Koczela y Carver (2023) situate a collective rite—. Second: guided play (14 September): the axis is the dialogic circle, not the free–guided–directed continuum. Third: cooperative (15 September) —there may be agreements IN the assembly; the axis is not the shared goal among peers—. Fourth: outdoor / loose parts / sand / water / playdough / risky play. Fifth: symbolic / spatial-block play. Sixth: co-regulation, SST, ToM, prosocial and peer-conflict/turn-taking —there may be voice turns in the circle; the axis is not conflict nor the turn—. Seventh: orality, literacy, dialogic reading and joint attention —Roding y Che Mustafa (2022), Akbar et al. (2022) and Rönnerman y Nordberg (2024) are read for the circle—. Eighth: generic voice-participation and inclusion as exclusive axes —Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026), Chun (2024) and Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026) are read for circle time as space—. Ninth: belonging as exclusive axis. Tekerci y Yildirim (2026) study morning routines and sense of belonging in early childhood education: a boundary with arrival routines, not the construct of this article. Inference: morning routines that cultivate belonging do not equal a dashboard of circle minutes nor a GenAI of morning meeting scripts. Tenth: SEL, CLASS, formative assessment, FE, numeracy, STEM, agent harness (16 September), initial teacher education, leadership, transition, family-school, privacy, multilingualism, teacher well-being, integrity and documentation —Jambunathan (2025) anchors GenAI in teacher education; Giray (2026) and Lee, Lee y Yoon (2025) require human mediation—. Inference: coherent AI in 3–6 remains on the side of the adult (preparation, reflection), not as a GenAI of scripts, an engagement score, a dashboard, a director-robot nor a ranking without judgment.

Four tests of support (not artifact)

The framework that follows is a pedagogical inference of this article, anchored in the verified cases. It is not a new international standard. It distinguishes four tests. If a kindergarten, preschool, CENDI or infant school does not pass them, it cannot declare that the artifacts constitute support for assembly / circle time in early childhood.

7.1. Test of situated practice (greeting, voice turns, listening, agreements, participation and belonging to the collective), not of the classifier/ML/camera nor of the robot or agent that directs the assembly. Sembiante et al. (2025), Koczela y Carver (2023), Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026) and Chun (2024) define the craft/artifact contrast. Su y Yang (2022), Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim (2024) and Giray (2026) map AI and robots as affordance, not as a situated circle. Inference: if the «evidence» is an engagement score, attention score, participation quality score, circle compliance, meeting minutes on-task or an agent that directs the morning meeting substituting for the adult, the center did analytics or HRI, not support.

7.2. Test of adult co-presence that holds the dialogic circle —not only «there were circle minutes»—, not of the GenAI of circle time scripts / morning meeting scripts / morning circle lesson packs / carpet-time activity banks. Rönnerman y Nordberg (2024), Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026), Han et al. (2022) and Roding y Che Mustafa (2022) situate practice and mediation. Jambunathan (2025) admits GenAI as preparation of the adult. Koczela y Carver (2023) show that packaging the most frequent activities does not reconstruct the craft. Inference: a script by prompt does not sign the episode in which the adult waits and listens to a three-year-old child (Chun, 2024).

7.3. Test of relational interpretation and of situated judgment, not of the dashboard of circle minutes / participation rate / morning meeting fidelity nor of the ranking of participation quality by vision/NLP. Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026) anchor the circle as a space of rights, not as a percentile. Sembiante et al. (2025) anchor participation norms constructed by co-teachers. Maulida y Nugroho (2025) and Akbar et al. (2022) anchor human pre-post, not a camera auto-score. Boyd y Edmiston (2021, transfer) anchor humanizing practices over time. Inference: high assembly minutes do not by themselves raise listening. Subordinate preparation of the adult is legitimate; the compliance scorer is not.

7.4. Test of category distinction and of professional judgment, not of the product catalog. Assembly / circle time ≠ free play, guided play, cooperative, outdoor/loose parts, symbolic/spatial, co-regulation, SST, ToM, prosocial, peer-conflict, orality/literacy as axes, generic voice-participation, inclusion as axis, belonging as axis, SEL, CLASS nor automatic formative assessment. Tekerci y Yildirim (2026) prevent recycling belonging; Roding y Che Mustafa (2022) and Akbar et al. (2022) prevent recycling orality; Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026) prevent recycling inclusion. Giray (2026) and Lee, Lee y Yoon (2025) require human mediation. Inference: support is fulfilled with an adult and a group who construct the everyday dialogic space. The framework admits digital subordinate to the adult's preparation and reflection (Jambunathan, 2025; Lee, Lee y Yoon, 2025; Edwards, 2023) and rejects declaring support by the artifacts (Giray, 2026; Su y Yang, 2022; Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim, 2024). The four tests are read together.

Discussion

Three tensions. First: displaying the artifacts versus exercising support. The cases of sections 5–6 —with marked transfers and boundaries— sustain the contrast; Su y Yang (2022), Su y Zhong (2022), Su, Ng y Chu (2023) and Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim (2024) map AI and robots without equivalence to situated assembly. Second: automated assessment or director-robot versus relational pedagogy —declaring support by an engagement score or by a system that «directs the assembly» is inverted pedagogy; Koczela y Carver (2023) show that a daily circle time can misalign from children's preferences; Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026) and Chun (2024) show that participation is a right and a teacher dilemma, not a ranking; Sembiante et al. (2025) show that norms are orchestrated in human transmodality—. Third: a GenAI of lesson packs / a robot that directs the circle / a ranking versus craft (Giray, 2026; Lee, Lee y Yoon, 2025; Edwards, 2022, 2023; Jambunathan, 2025): selling an agent as director of the morning meeting in 3–6 confuses product with practice. Rönnerman y Nordberg (2024) confirm that linguistic support is cultivated in the teacher's practice of the circle; Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026) confirm the ideals/realities gap that no fidelity dashboard resolves; Maulida y Nugroho (2025) and Akbar et al. (2022) confirm effects of circle activities read as craft, not as a license of score; Boyd y Edmiston (2021) confirm, with transfer, that the Morning Meeting is understood in community time. Subordinate digital is legitimate toward the adult (preparation and reflection; Lee, Lee y Yoon, 2025; Jambunathan, 2025); inverting the sequence is not. If the center shows an adult and a group who greeted one another, took turns of voice and agreed, it may speak of support; if it only shows GenAI scripts, engagement scores, circle minutes, director-robots or rankings without judgment, it speaks of artifacts.

Limits

This review is narrative. It does not apply its own PRISMA nor estimate combined effects. No d, r or AUC is invented. Sembiante et al. (2025) cover three bilingual classrooms. Rönnerman y Nordberg (2024) are action research of linguistic support. Koczela y Carver (2023) are 276 responses of Montessori guides in the United States. Karan y Tantekin Erden (2026) explore the circle as a space of participation: an unrecovered N is not invented. Mumcuoğlu y Öztürk (2026) cover teachers in training in Türkiye. Chun (2024) covers 27 3-year-old children and about 24 weeks. Roding y Che Mustafa (2022) are two 5-year-old children. Han et al. (2022) examine meaning and experience: statistics are not invented. Akbar et al. (2022) are 25 students of a pre-post: t and d are not invented. Maulida y Nugroho (2025) are 24 children of a single group; the N-Gain 0,611 is cited as the authors report it, without converting it into evidence of artifacts. Boyd y Edmiston (2021) are two primary classrooms: stage transfer. Tekerci y Yildirim (2026) measure morning routines and belonging: boundary, not axis. Lee, Lee y Yoon (2025) measure six teachers. Jambunathan (2025) is teacher education: transfer. Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim (2024), Su y Yang (2022), Su y Zhong (2022), Su, Ng y Chu (2023), Edwards (2022, 2023) and Giray (2026) map AI, not the display package in CENDI. No verified trials of the artifacts as a single package of «assembly / circle time with AI» in a 3–6 classroom were located; they are discussed as a category ceiling. The inferences of section 7 are category hypotheses, not implementation evidence.

Conclusions

The artifacts —a GenAI of circle time scripts, morning meeting scripts, morning circle lesson packs or carpet-time activity banks; a classifier/ML/camera of engagement score, attention score, participation quality score, circle compliance or meeting minutes on-task; a dashboard of circle minutes, participation rate or morning meeting fidelity; a robot or an agent that directs the assembly substituting for the adult; a ranking of participation quality by vision/NLP— do not constitute support for assembly / circle time in early childhood education. Su y Yang (2022), Su y Zhong (2022) and Su, Ng y Chu (2023) confirm AI affordances without equivalence to a situated circle. Lee, Jo, Lee y Kim (2024), Lee, Lee y Yoon (2025), Jambunathan (2025), Edwards (2022, 2023) and Giray (2026) set frameworks, perceptions, teacher education, postdigitality and critique, not a director-robot nor a GenAI of a recipe. The empirical cases (sections 5–6) require reading each system by what it measures and by what it does not equal as situated pedagogy. When there is support there is an adult and a group who construct greeting, voice turns, listening, agreements, participation and belonging to the collective (Sembiante et al., 2025; Rönnerman y Nordberg, 2024; Koczela y Carver, 2023; Karan y Tantekin Erden, 2026; Chun, 2024). The assembly is distinguished from free play, guided play, cooperative, outdoor/loose parts, symbolic/spatial, co-regulation, SST, ToM, prosocial, peer-conflict, orality/literacy as axes, generic voice-participation, inclusion and belonging as axes, SEL, CLASS and automatic formative assessment.

Where the sources do not measure a kindergarten, this article does not claim it. Where they measure mappings of AI, morning circle, Montessori practices, participation rights, linguistic support, vocabulary, communication, confidence, primary Morning Meeting or belonging morning routines, it does not translate them into support via engagement score, script by prompt, dashboard of minutes, director-robot or ranking. Accompanying girls and boys from three to six years in the assembly is to exercise situated practices in which the adult and the group construct an everyday dialogic space of greeting, voice turns, listening, agreements, participation and belonging to the kindergarten collective, with co-presence that interprets the circle as situated relational practice, not as an «engagement score». The rest is a GenAI of scripts, an engagement score, a dashboard of minutes, a robot that directs the assembly and a ranking. It is not support for assembly / circle time in early childhood education, and it must not be presented as what it is not.

Laboratorio Editorial de NEXTECH.IA / Ingeniero Mitre.

References

  1. Akbar, H., Fatima, H. G., y Unis, B. (2022). Vocabulary building through circle time at ECE (early childhood education). Journal of Early Childhood Care and Education (JECCE), 6(1). https://doi.org/10.30971/jecce.v6i1.1487
  2. Boyd, M. P., y Edmiston, B. (2021). Creating democratic classroom communities with Morning Meeting humanizing social practices. A response to “The Morning Meeting: Fostering a participatory democracy begins with youth in public education”. Democracy & Education, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.65214/2164-7992.1544
  3. Chun, H.-J. (2024). Action research on the three-year-olds children promotion of the participation rights focusing on the circle-time. Korea Association of Child-centered Practice, 19(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.53526/kacp.2024.19.1.21
  4. Edwards, S. (2022). Concepts for early childhood education and care in the postdigital. Postdigital Science and Education, 5(3), 777–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00356-7
  5. Edwards, S. (2023). Early childhood education and care, artificial intelligence and the postdigital. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 48(3), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391231198910
  6. Giray, L. (2026). A critical stand against artificial intelligence in early childhood education. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 6(1), Article 768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01510-x
  7. Han, Y.-J., Lee, M.-Y., y Kwon, H.-S. (2022). Circle-time experience and meaning in a child·play-centered classroom. The Journal of Korea Open Association for Early Childhood Education, 27(3), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.20437/koaece27-3-05
  8. Jambunathan, S. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence into early childhood teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491251340141
  9. Karan, Ş., y Tantekin Erden, F. (2026). Children’s participation rights in practice: exploring circle time as a space for participation in preschool classrooms. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2026.2631643
  10. Koczela, A., y Carver, K. (2023). Understanding circle time practices in Montessori early childhood settings. Journal of Montessori Research, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v9i2.20962
  11. Lee, J., Jo, J., Lee, J. O., y Kim, S. H. (2024). Incorporating humanoid artificial intelligence (AI) robots into early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53(8), 2849–2857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01690-0
  12. Lee, J., Lee, J. O., y Yoon, J. (2025). Exploring perceptions of early childhood teachers on the use of artificial intelligence in early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2025.2600033
  13. Maulida, L., y Nugroho, R. A. A. E. (2025). Effectiveness of activities Morning Circle to increase self-confidence of 5-6 year old children at ANNUR Kedungringin Islamic Kindergarten. BELIA Early Childhood Education Papers, 14(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.15294/belia.v14i1.16180
  14. Mumcuoğlu, A., y Öztürk, G. (2026). Inclusive ideals, everyday realities: preservice teachers’ conceptions and practices of circle time in early childhood classrooms in Türkiye. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2026.2665176
  15. Roding, I., y Che Mustafa, M. (2022). Improving communication skill using circle time for preschool children. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 12(2), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.37134/jrpptte.vol12.2.3.2022
  16. Rönnerman, K., y Nordberg, A. (2024). Circle time in preschool as a practice for developing language support between teachers and children using the structured ELSA model. Educational Action Research, 34(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2024.2421959
  17. Sembiante, S. F., Bengochea, A., y Gort, M. (2025). Morning circle as a community of practice: Co-teachers’ transmodality in a dual language bilingual education preschool classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 25(2), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221144232
  18. Su, J., Ng, D. T. K., y Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in early childhood education: The challenges and opportunities. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100124
  19. Su, J., y Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100049
  20. Su, J., y Zhong, Y. (2022). Artificial intelligence (AI) in early childhood education: Curriculum design and future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100072
  21. Tekerci, H., y Yildirim, A. (2026). Effect of morning routines on children’s sense of belonging in early childhood education: A developmental pedagogy study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 54(5), 4277–4291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-026-02133-8