1. Introduction and problem

In the 3–6 age band—kindergarten, preschool, CENDI, early childhood school—a package of five artefacts has been installed that purport to count as support for outdoor play, nature play or forest school: a chatbot that “teaches nature” or narrates the forest to the child from a screen; an AR plant/animal identification app that replaces adult-guided exploration or shared wonder; a wearable or dashboard that scores “outdoor minutes,” “nature engagement” or “green score”; a generator that produces “outdoor STEM units” or “nature lessons” from a prompt; and a VR/metaverse “virtual forest” that replaces time outdoors. All five are visible in coordination and allow centres to display that they “already do outdoor with AI.” The leap—from generative narration, AR layer, minute score, prompt-based unit or virtual forest to affirming support for outdoor play—is not authorized by evidence from AI-in-ECE mappings nor by outdoor-play pedagogy when there is prolonged time outdoors, body in place, peer negotiation in the yard or natural yard, natural loose parts, adult co-presence without over-direction, and real sensoriality (mud, wind, shade, insects).

This article’s thesis is restrictive. A chatbot that “teaches nature” or narrates the forest to the child from a screen, an AR identification app that replaces exploration, a wearable or dashboard that scores “outdoor minutes” or “green score,” a generator of “outdoor STEM units” or “nature lessons” by prompt, or a VR/metaverse “virtual forest” that replaces outdoor time do not constitute support for outdoor play in the early years. In early childhood, outdoor play develops with the body in place, prolonged time, peers, real materials, calibrated risk and human scaffolding; not a minute score, an AR layer that digitizes the yard, an AI narrator that speaks for nature, or a virtual forest. Sugiyama et al. (2023) document, in the HBC subsample (N = 885), that frequent outdoor play at 2 years 8 months partially mitigates the association between screen time >1 h/day at age 2 and neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 4 (Vineland), with approximately 18% mediation for daily living skills, while communication associates with screen more directly: an empirical finding of partial mitigation, not of chatbot or green score. Sella, Bolognesi, Bergamini, Mason and Pazzaglia (2023) systematically review psychological benefits of forest school in preschool (16 studies; N ≈ 1560; ages 3–6) with methodological caution. Dabaja (2022) synthesizes two decades of Forest School impacts. That authorizes asking what was measured: the bot’s narration, an AR label, an outdoor minute or a prompt unit—not the practice when a child climbs with calibrated risk, negotiates with a peer in the natural yard, touches mud and sustains the episode outdoors with an adult who co-presences without directing the script.

The problem is aggravated by five category confusions. First: outdoor play / nature play / forest school / green time is not curricular environmental education nor ECEfS / pro-environmentalism as axis—that construct was already treated in this series; here it appears only as category contrast. Second: it is not generic indoor/outdoor “free play”—although free play may host it, this article’s axis is situated outdoor practice with body, peers, natural materials and prolonged time. Third: it is not motor development as axis—motor outcomes may be lateral to outdoor play (Sella et al., 2023; WHO, 2019). Fourth: it is not outdoor STEM nor a packaged “nature lesson” curricular product. Fifth: it is not a score of “outdoor minutes,” “nature engagement” or “green score,” nor VR forest substituting for outdoors. This work does not recycle environmental/sustainability, free play, STEM/robotics, motor development, SEL, executive functions, spatial/block play, symbolic play, artistic creativity, scientific inquiry, literacy, orality, UDL, documentation, formative assessment, participation, planning, joint attention, adult–child interactions as generic axis, or teacher education. The question is what counts as outdoor play when a centre “does AI and nature.”

There is, moreover, an economy of coordination: narrator chatbot, AR layer, green score, printed unit and VR forest fit on a slide; prolonged green time with mud, peers and adult co-presence does not. WHO (2019) anchors sedentary and movement limits for under-fives. NAEYC (2022) and OECD (2021, 2023) require meaningful interactions and subordinated digitization. Inference: support for outdoor play is not fulfilled by generating nature lessons or scoring outdoor minutes. Contributions are three: separating craft from the artefact package; examining three case families—including Lyu and McNair’s (2026) Froebel+AI dual-track as contrast of peripheral good use when AI supports the adult/teacher and does not replace the child’s body outdoors, and Sugiyama et al. (2023) as evidence of outdoor as mitigator—; and offering four tests to affirm support for outdoor play, not merely chatbot, AR, score, prompt or VR.

2. State of the art: from situated outdoor-play practice to the artefact on display

It is useful to separate four strata that the market of “AI for outdoor play in ECE” tends to mix. The first is the construct of outdoor play / nature play / forest school / green time at ages 3–6 as practice of prolonged time outdoors, bodily play with appropriate risk, peer negotiation in the yard or natural yard, natural loose parts and real sensoriality (Sugiyama et al., 2023; Sella et al., 2023; Dabaja, 2022; Zhai et al., 2024; Torjinski et al., 2024). The second is the pedagogical craft that cultivates it—adult co-presence without over-direction, protection of outdoor time, risk calibration, offering loose parts, not replacing shared wonder with digital narration—(Zhai et al., 2024; Lyu & McNair, 2026; NAEYC, 2022; OECD, 2021, 2023; WHO, 2019). The third is evidence on AI affordances in ECE, child-centred GenAI and Froebel+AI dual-track—without equating them to situated outdoor play with body in place—(Chen, 2024; Su & Yang, 2022; Su & Zhong, 2022; Ljungcrantz, 2026; Nikolopoulou, 2025; Lyu & McNair, 2026). The fourth is the rights, systems and developmentally appropriate practice framework that treats the 3–6-year-old as a subject of situated bodily outdoor experience, not as a signal vector for a green-score pipeline nor as a passive recipient of chatbot narrations or a virtual forest (UNESCO, 2021; Miao & Holmes, 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

In construct and craft, Sugiyama et al. (2023) report outdoor play as a partial mitigating factor in the screen–neurodevelopment association (N = 885; screen >1 h/day at age 2; frequent outdoor at 2y8m; Vineland at 4): empirical finding. Sella et al. (2023) synthesize 16 studies (N ≈ 1560; 3–6) on forest school: cognitive, motor, connectedness and wellbeing benefits reported with limited methodological quality—cite with caution. Dabaja (2022) reviews Forest School impacts on learning, self-esteem, wellbeing, risk and environmental awareness. Zhai, Blom, Dillon, Wu and Yan (2024) document Chinese kindergarten educators’ perspectives on nature play and early immersion in nature. Torjinski, Cliff and Horwood (2024) map, in a scoping review of 23 studies, associations among nature exposure, screen use and parent–child relations: heterogeneous evidence. Inference: a chatbot does not touch mud; a child outdoors with a peer and a co-present adult does.

In the artefact stratum, Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022), Su and Zhong (2022) and Ljungcrantz (2026) map AI affordances, curricula and state of the art in ECE without equating them to situated outdoor play. Nikolopoulou (2025) balances promises and challenges of child-centred GenAI under teacher mediation: caution framework. Lyu and McNair (2026) reconceptualize Froebelian play pedagogy with AI in a Chinese context (N = 50 practitioners): dual-track integration; explicit concerns about displacement of sensory and nature-based experiences; AI is positioned peripherally to the adult. In the systems stratum, UNESCO (2021) requires human oversight. Miao and Holmes (2023) set pedagogical validation and age thresholds for generative AI—direct framework for the prompt-based nature-lesson generator. U.S. Department of Education (2023) requires that AI support, not replace, professional judgement. WHO (2019) anchors movement and sedentary behaviour; OECD (2021, 2023) anchor meaningful interactions and subordinated digitization.

3. Review method

A critical narrative review was conducted, not a primary meta-analysis. The purpose was not to estimate a homogeneous effect size of nature-narrator chatbots, AR identification apps, green-score wearables, outdoor-unit generators or VR forests, but to articulate a pedagogical category argument with verified sources. Inclusion criteria: (a) 2021–2026, with WHO (2019) accepted as normative movement/sedentary anchor, and transfer explicitly marked when sample or level does not equal kindergarten 3–6; (b) outdoor play, nature play, forest school, green time, nature exposure, or AI in early childhood education relevant to artefact/craft contrast; (c) relevance to kindergarten, preschool, CENDI or ages 3–6; (d) peer-reviewed journal, DOI or NAEYC/UNESCO/OECD/WHO/education-department report; (e) verifiable DOI or publisher page. Axes already used in this series were excluded as central object—environmental/sustainability as ECEfS, generic free play, STEM/robotics, motor development as axis, SEL, executive functions, spatial/block play, symbolic play, artistic creativity, scientific inquiry, literacy, orality, UDL, documentation, formative assessment, participation, planning, joint attention, adult–child interactions as generic axis and teacher education—though some appear as category boundaries. Environmental appears only as contrast (ECEfS ≠ outdoor play). Motor development only as possible lateral outcome (Sella et al., 2023; WHO, 2019).

The search was executed on 2 September 2026 (slot 21:02 America/Mexico_City) on DOI pages, Crossref, Springer, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, JAMA Network, BMC, MDPI, JAIR, OECD iLibrary, UNESDOC, WHO, NAEYC and publisher sites. Each source was verified against at least one of those pages. Empirical finding, conceptual or normative framework, and pedagogical inference marked as such were distinguished. Priority was given to distinguishing outdoor play / curricular environmental education / generic free play / motor development / outdoor STEM / minute score / VR forest, and to caution against translating narrator chatbots, AR layers, green scores or prompt units into pedagogy of prolonged outdoor time with body, peers and real materials. No N, d, r, AUC or DOI was invented: when an artefact (green-score wearable; forest-narrator chatbot; substitute VR forest; AR app replacing exploration) lacks a verified study in the corpus with outdoor-scoring metrics at ages 3–6, it is discussed as a category ceiling supported by general AI-in-ECE mappings (Chen, 2024; Su & Yang, 2022; Ljungcrantz, 2026) and by the practitioner-mediated Froebel+AI dual-track contrast (Lyu & McNair, 2026), not as an invented empirical finding. Candidate sources were omitted when exact authors did not verifiably match the proposed DOI.

4. Case 1. “Nature tutor” chatbot, AR identification app, outdoor-minutes/green-score wearable/dashboard, GenAI outdoor-unit generator or VR forest do not constitute support for outdoor play

Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022) and Ljungcrantz (2026) saturate the artefact-ceiling portrait when AI in ECE is presented as if it were support for outdoor play. Chen (2024) maps global AI affordances in early childhood education: scoping finding on emerging uses—tutoring, analytics, content generation—not a finding that a chatbot narrating the forest cultivates prolonged green time with body in place. Su and Yang (2022) review the AI-in-ECE field: synthesis finding on trends, not on peer negotiation in a natural yard or loose parts. Ljungcrantz (2026) reviews AI–ECE interaction 2020–2024: state-of-the-art finding, not situated forest school. Pedagogical inference, marked as such: the gesture “the child heard the chatbot narrate nature = there was outdoor play” is a generative-tutoring ceiling. Sugiyama et al. (2023), Sella et al. (2023) and Dabaja (2022) require outdoor time, body, calibrated risk and nature-based experiences; a useful dialogue with a bot can coexist with absence of yard, peers, mud and prolonged time.

Nikolopoulou (2025) and Miao and Holmes (2023) name the risk of the “outdoor STEM unit” or “nature lesson” generator from a prompt. Nikolopoulou (2025) balances promises and challenges of child-centred GenAI under teacher mediation: caution framework. Miao and Holmes (2023) require pedagogical validation and age thresholds for generative AI. Status: normative and review framework, not a trial of prompt-based nature lessons versus an outdoor episode with loose parts and adult co-presence. Inference: producing a unit by prompt may be subordinated teacher preparation; support for outdoor play begins when there is body outdoors, protected time, peers, real materials and an adult who co-presences without over-directing. Su and Zhong (2022) propose AI curriculum design in ECE as future direction—AI literacy curriculum, not situated outdoor play. Boundary inference: an AI curriculum does not sign green time.

The AR identification app that replaces exploration, the wearable or dashboard of “outdoor minutes”/“green score,” and the VR forest that replaces outdoor time lack, in the verified corpus, trials with reported N, d, r or AUC for nature-engagement scoring or VR substitution of outdoors in preschool 3–6; figures are not invented. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022) and Ljungcrantz (2026) map analytics, tutoring, agents and generation as AI-in-ECE trend, without equivalence to mediated outdoor play. Torjinski et al. (2024) synthesize nature exposure, screen and parent–child relations (23 studies): heterogeneous scoping finding, not wearable green score. Lyu and McNair (2026)—N = 50 Froebelian practitioners—document concerns about displacement of sensory/nature-based experiences when AI approaches the child as substitute: empirical contrast of legitimate peripheral use only when AI supports the adult. Restrictive inference: GenAI supporting the teacher ≠ narrator chatbot to the child; AR layer labelling a leaf ≠ exploration and shared wonder; teacher empowerment ≠ outdoor-minutes score; VR forest ≠ natural yard. UNESCO (2021) and U.S. Department of Education (2023) require human oversight. The five artefacts share one substitution grammar: the bot’s narration speaks for nature; AR digitizes the yard; the green score replaces pedagogical observation of the outdoor episode; the prompt replaces prolonged time; VR forest replaces body in place.

It is useful to specify the ceiling without inventing effects. A chatbot can narrate a forest; Zhai et al. (2024) and Dabaja (2022) measure or review human nature play / Forest School, not turns with a model. An AR app can label a plant; Sella et al. (2023) review in-person forest school, not identification AUC. A wearable can sum minutes; Sugiyama et al. (2023) measure reported outdoor play as mitigator, not green-score rankings. A generator can print a nature lesson; Lyu and McNair (2026) warn of sensory displacement. VR can simulate trees; WHO (2019) anchors real movement and screen-based sedentary limits. Inference: “high green score” or “unit per prompt” or “virtual forest completed” is measurement, generation or simulation, not signed support for outdoor play.

5. Case 2. What the kindergarten does when there is support for outdoor play: time outdoors, peers, loose parts, co-presence—with Lyu and McNair (dual-track) and Sugiyama et al. as contrast

Sugiyama et al. (2023) saturate the craft from the empirical cohort (N = 885; HBC subsample): frequent outdoor play at 2 years 8 months partially mitigates the association between elevated screen time at age 2 and Vineland outcomes at age 4, with approximately 18% mediation for daily living skills; communication associates with screen more directly. Status: empirical finding of partial mitigation. Marked transfer: the cohort begins in toddlerhood and is assessed at 4; it is read with caution toward 3–6, not as a chatbot trial. Pedagogical inference, marked as such: this is the kind of object an early childhood setting can call support for outdoor play when it protects outdoor time against screen—not when it scores minutes on a dashboard. Outdoor play is not a green score: it is growing command of being outdoors with body, negotiating with peers in the yard or natural yard, using natural loose parts, calibrating risk, sustaining the episode in time and receiving adult co-presence without over-direction. A chatbot that narrates the forest without a yard can celebrate a labelled dialogue and, at once, empty green time. A wearable can label “60 outdoor minutes” and not have captured whether the adult over-directed, whether there were peers, mud or shared wonder.

Sella et al. (2023) document, with methodological caution, reported benefits of forest school in preschool (16 studies; N ≈ 1560; 3–6): cognitive, motor as lateral outcome, connectedness and wellbeing. Dabaja (2022) synthesizes Forest School impacts—learning, self-esteem, wellbeing, risk, environmental awareness—without converting environmental awareness into this article’s ECEfS axis. Zhai et al. (2024) contribute educator perspectives on nature play and nature immersion in Chinese kindergarten: craft is read from educators, not from a score. Torjinski et al. (2024) show heterogeneity in nature–screen–parent relations (23 studies). NAEYC (2022) and OECD (2021, 2023) anchor meaningful interactions and subordinated digitization. WHO (2019) anchors movement and sedentary limits.

The contrast of peripheral good use is Lyu and McNair’s (2026) Froebel+AI dual-track. They report N = 50 Froebelian practitioners in a Chinese context: dual-track integration; AI is conceived as peripheral to the adult/teacher; concerns emerge about displacement of sensory and nature-based experiences if technology approaches the child as substitute. Status: empirical finding of pedagogical reconceptualization and practitioner concern. Inference: subordinated digital—adult receiving AI support to plan or reflect without replacing the child’s body outdoors—can be coherent with outdoor play; it does not authorize declaring that a narrator chatbot, AR replacing exploration, a green score or a VR forest constitute the craft. Mediation—NAEYC (2022), OECD (2021)—is adult co-presence that organizes outdoor time, offers loose parts, calibrates risk, listens to peer negotiation and expands without imposing a digital script. Inference: pedagogical observation of outdoor play is professional reading of the outdoor episode, not a minutes log. A dashboard does not feel the wind; a child and a co-present adult do.

6. Case 3. Outdoor play ≠ curricular environmental education, motor development, outdoor STEM, minute score or VR forest

The first category frontier is curricular environmental education / ECEfS / pro-environmentalism. A sustainability-teaching programme may coexist with yard outings; it does not, by itself, constitute outdoor play of prolonged time, body in place, peers, loose parts and calibrated risk. Dabaja (2022) mentions environmental awareness as a possible Forest School impact: empirical overlap, not identity of constructs with ECEfS as axis. Inference: this article forbids the equivalence “we have a sustainability unit = there is support for outdoor play.” A chatbot that “teaches nature” is also not outdoor: it is generative tutoring. The second frontier is generic indoor/outdoor free play: free play may host outdoor; the axis here requires situated outdoor practice with real sensoriality, not a generic construct already published. The third is motor development as axis: Sella et al. (2023) and WHO (2019) show motor/movement as lateral outcome or anchor, not identity of constructs. Inference: a dashboard that rewards “steps” does not convert motor tracking into outdoor play. The fourth is outdoor STEM / packaged nature lesson: generating units by prompt confuses textual product with green time. The fifth is minute score / green score and VR forest: scoring engagement or simulating trees inverts the pedagogy. UNESCO (2021), Miao and Holmes (2023) and U.S. Department of Education (2023) require human oversight. Inference: the only AI use coherent with ages 3–6 remains on the adult side—Lyu and McNair’s (2026) Froebel+AI dual-track—subject to pedagogical validation. It does not enter as autonomous scorer, narrator chatbot, substitute AR, generator replacing outdoor time or VR forest.

7. Inferential framework: four tests to affirm support for outdoor play, not an artefact

The framework that follows is this article’s pedagogical inference, anchored in the cases and verified instruments. It is not a new international standard. It distinguishes four tests. If a kindergarten, preschool, CENDI or early childhood school does not pass them, it cannot declare that a “nature tutor” chatbot, an AR identification app, an outdoor-minutes/green-score wearable/dashboard, a prompt-based outdoor-unit generator or a VR forest constitute support for outdoor play.

7.1. Test of situated practice of body in place, prolonged outdoor time, peers and natural loose parts—not of the narrator chatbot or AR layer. Sugiyama et al. (2023), Sella et al. (2023), Dabaja (2022) and Zhai et al. (2024) define the craft as observable outdoor/nature/forest school. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022) and Ljungcrantz (2026) map chatbots and content generation as affordances, not as green time. Inference: evidence of support for outdoor play is verified in whether the child was outdoors with body, peers and real materials. If the centre’s “evidence” is a chatbot dialogue or an AR label, the centre has done tutoring or yard digitization, not support for outdoor play.

7.2. Test of appropriate risk, real sensoriality and adult co-presence without over-direction—not of the outdoor STEM / nature-lesson unit by prompt. Dabaja (2022), Zhai et al. (2024) and NAEYC (2022) situate risk, immersion and developmentally appropriate practice. Miao and Holmes (2023) require pedagogical validation of generative AI. Inference: producing a unit by prompt does not demonstrate mud, wind, shade, insects, calibrated risk or co-presence. A script may exist; it does not sign the outdoor episode.

7.3. Test of human mediation—including the peripheral Froebel+AI dual-track contrast—not of the green-score dashboard or VR forest. OECD (2021, 2023) require meaningful interactions and subordinated digitization. Lyu and McNair (2026) anchor AI peripheral to the adult with concern about sensory/nature-based displacement. Sugiyama et al. (2023) anchor outdoor as partial mitigator against screen. Inference: “high green score” or “VR forest completed” may raise a threshold without raising co-presence quality. Pedagogical observation reads the outdoor episode; the dashboard counts minutes. GenAI guiding the adult is legitimate periphery; the chatbot that speaks for nature to the child is not.

7.4. Test of category distinction and professional judgement—not of the product catalogue. Outdoor play ≠ curricular environmental education / ECEfS, generic free play, motor development as axis, outdoor STEM, minute score or VR forest. Dabaja (2022) and Zhai et al. (2024) prevent confusing environmental awareness or nature-play perspectives with ECEfS identity. Sella et al. (2023) and WHO (2019) prevent confusing lateral motor outcomes with the outdoor construct. Torjinski et al. (2024) prevent reducing nature exposure to a screen proxy. UNESCO (2021), Miao and Holmes (2023), U.S. Department of Education (2023), NAEYC (2022) and OECD (2021, 2023) require human oversight, pedagogical validation and not replacing professional judgement. Inference: a centre cannot treat the infant as a vector of outdoor minutes nor as exclusive interlocutor of an AI narrator. Support for outdoor play is not fulfilled by scoring “nature engagement” better. It is fulfilled by practising prolonged outdoor time, body in place, peers, real materials, calibrated risk and human scaffolding.

The framework admits digital when subordinated to teacher preparation and validated human mediation (Lyu & McNair, 2026; Chen, 2024; Su & Yang, 2022; Ljungcrantz, 2026). It rejects declaring support for outdoor play by narrator chatbot, substitute AR, green-score wearable/dashboard, unit generator replacing green time or VR forest (Miao & Holmes, 2023; Nikolopoulou, 2025; UNESCO, 2021). The four tests are read together: passing only the first without co-presence is not enough; passing only the fourth without situated practice is not enough either.

8. Discussion

Three tensions organise the discussion. The first is between displaying narrator chatbot, AR, green score, generation or VR forest and exercising support for outdoor play. It is a finding that outdoor as mitigator (N = 885), forest school in preschool (16 studies; N ≈ 1560), the Forest School review, educator perspectives on nature play and the Froebel+AI dual-track (N = 50) sustain the situated craft or its boundary (Sugiyama et al., 2023; Sella et al., 2023; Dabaja, 2022; Zhai et al., 2024; Lyu & McNair, 2026). It is a framework that AI in ECE grows without equivalence to outdoor play with body in place (Chen, 2024; Su & Yang, 2022; Ljungcrantz, 2026) and that Torjinski et al. (2024) show nature–screen–relations heterogeneity. It is not a finding that the five artefacts produce the craft of the natural yard: they narrate, label, score, generate or simulate what engineering delivers and declare what only mediated practice would authorize.

The second is between automated assessment of “outdoor minutes” or “nature engagement” and everyday green-time pedagogy. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022) and Ljungcrantz (2026) objectify analytics and classification affordances as trend; they do not report in the corpus verified trials validating green-score or outdoor-engagement scoring by wearable in preschool 3–6—hence metrics are not invented. Inference: insisting that the kindergarten “already supports outdoor play” because a dashboard sums minutes or a chatbot narrates the forest is inverted pedagogy. An algorithmic or conversational proxy is made to stand for body in place, peers, loose parts and co-presence. The infant becomes a signal emitter for the wearable or a listener to the bot; the adult, dashboard supervisor.

The third is between generated unit/nature lesson or VR forest and integral outdoor craft. Miao and Holmes (2023) and Nikolopoulou (2025) set GenAI limits; Lyu and McNair (2026) warn of sensory/nature-based displacement; Su and Zhong (2022) situate AI curriculum as a distinct construct. Inference: selling outdoor unit by prompt or virtual forest as “outdoor play with AI” confuses textual product or simulation with situated practice. A chatbot because the system needs to narrate does not replace the adult who co-presences while the child climbs, negotiates with a peer and touches mud. Sugiyama et al. (2023) confirm partial mitigation against screen without authorizing a score; WHO (2019), UNESCO (2021), Miao and Holmes (2023) and U.S. Department of Education (2023) subordinate screens and AI to professional judgement and real movement.

The four tests in section 7 read these tensions with operational criteria. The empirical craft contrast—N = 885; 16 forest-school studies; Dabaja; Zhai et al.; dual-track N = 50; Torjinski et al. scoping—defines the floor the five artefacts do not reach alone (Sugiyama et al., 2023; Sella et al., 2023; Dabaja, 2022; Zhai et al., 2024; Lyu & McNair, 2026; Torjinski et al., 2024). Inference: support erodes not by using AI, but by treating chatbot, AR, score, generation or VR as if they were the practice. Subordinated digital is legitimate—AI peripheral to the adult (Lyu & McNair, 2026)—; inverting the sequence is not. It is verified outdoors, with body, peers, real materials and a co-present adult (NAEYC, 2022; OECD, 2021, 2023).

9. Limits

This review is narrative. It does not apply PRISMA nor estimate primary combined effects. Sugiyama et al. (2023) measure N = 885 with toddlerhood onset and Vineland at 4: marked partial transfer toward 3–6; they do not compare chatbot versus outdoor. Sella et al. (2023) synthesize 16 studies with limited methodological quality. Dabaja (2022) is a Forest School impact review. Zhai et al. (2024) contribute educator perspectives, not artefact RCTs. Torjinski et al. (2024) are heterogeneous scoping. Lyu and McNair (2026) document dual-track with N = 50 practitioners: peripheral contrast, not a green-score trial. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022), Su and Zhong (2022), Ljungcrantz (2026) and Nikolopoulou (2025) map AI in ECE, not outdoor-minutes scoring. No verified trials of green-score wearable, nature-narrator chatbot, exploration-substituting AR or VR forest in CENDI 3–6 were located; they are discussed as category ceiling. WHO (2019), NAEYC, UNESCO and OECD are framework sources. Section 7 inferences are pedagogical-category hypotheses, not implementation evidence.

10. Conclusions

A chatbot that “teaches nature” or narrates the forest to the child from a screen, an AR identification app that replaces exploration, a wearable or dashboard that scores “outdoor minutes” or “green score,” a generator of “outdoor STEM units” or “nature lessons” by prompt, or a VR/metaverse “virtual forest” that replaces outdoor time do not constitute support for outdoor play in an early childhood education setting. Chen (2024), Su and Yang (2022) and Ljungcrantz (2026) confirm AI affordances without equivalence to situated outdoor play. Nikolopoulou (2025) and Miao and Holmes (2023) set GenAI limits. Lyu and McNair (2026) require reading the Froebel+AI dual-track as peripheral contrast—AI→adult ≠ narrator chatbot, substitute AR, green score or VR forest. When there is support, there is situated practice: outdoor as partial mitigator against screen (Sugiyama et al., 2023; N = 885); forest school in preschool with caution (Sella et al., 2023); Forest School impacts (Dabaja, 2022); nature play from educators (Zhai et al., 2024); nature–screen–relations (Torjinski et al., 2024); DAP and interactions (NAEYC, 2022; OECD, 2021, 2023); movement and sedentary behaviour (WHO, 2019). Outdoor play is distinguished from curricular environmental education, generic free play, motor development as axis, outdoor STEM, minute score and VR forest. Guidance requires human oversight (UNESCO, 2021; Miao & Holmes, 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2023; Su & Zhong, 2022).

Where sources do not measure a kindergarten, this article does not affirm it. Where they measure AI mappings, GenAI or practitioner dual-track, it does not translate them into pedagogical outdoor-play support. Accompanying three- to six-year-olds in outdoor play is to exercise prolonged outdoor time, body in place, peer negotiation, natural loose parts, calibrated risk, real sensoriality and adult co-presence without over-direction. The rest is narrator chatbot, AR layer, minute scoring, outdoor unit by prompt and virtual forest. It is not support for outdoor play in early childhood education, and must not be presented as what it is not.

Laboratorio Editorial de NEXTECH.IA / Ingeniero Mitre.

References

  1. Chen, J. J. (2024). A scoping study on AI affordances in early childhood education. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 81, 701–740. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.16882
  2. Dabaja, Z. F. (2022). Reviewing two decades of research on the Forest School impact on children: The sequel. Education 3-13, 50(6), 737–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1905019
  3. Ljungcrantz, L. (2026). The interaction of AI and early childhood education. A state-of-the-art review 2020–2024. Early Childhood Education Journal, 54, 3565–3581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-02079-3
  4. Lyu, Y., y McNair, L. (2026). Bridging Froebel and AI: Reconceptualizing play pedagogy in Chinese context. Education Sciences, 16(3), 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030390
  5. Miao, F., y Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
  6. NAEYC. (2022). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (4.ª ed.). NAEYC. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/books/dap-fourth-edition
  7. Nikolopoulou, K. (2025). Child-centered integration of generative AI in early learning: Balancing promises and challenges. AI, Brain and Child. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44436-025-00023-1
  8. OECD. (2021). Starting Strong VI: Supporting meaningful interactions in early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en
  9. OECD. (2023). Empowering young children in the digital age (Starting Strong). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/50967622-en
  10. Sella, E., Bolognesi, M., Bergamini, E., Mason, L., y Pazzaglia, F. (2023). Psychological benefits of attending forest school for preschool children: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09750-4
  11. Su, J., y Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100049
  12. Su, J., y Zhong, Y. (2022). Artificial Intelligence (AI) in early childhood education: Curriculum design and future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100072
  13. Sugiyama, M., Tsuchiya, K. J., Okubo, Y., Rahman, M. S., Uchiyama, S., Harada, T., Iwabuchi, T., Okumura, A., Nakayasu, C., Amma, Y., Suzuki, H., Takahashi, N., Kinsella-Kammerer, B., Nomura, Y., Itoh, H., y Nishimura, T. (2023). Outdoor play as a mitigating factor in the association between screen time for young children and neurodevelopmental outcomes. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(3), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.5356
  14. Torjinski, M., Cliff, D., y Horwood, S. (2024). Associations between nature exposure, screen use, and parent-child relations: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 13, Article 305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02690-2
  15. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf
  16. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
  17. World Health Organization. (2019). Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550536
  18. Zhai, J., Blom, S. M., Dillon, J., Wu, S., y Yan, X. (2024). Early childhood immersion in nature: Chinese kindergarten educators’ perspectives on nature play. Environmental Education Research, 31(2), 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2351190