Compare, 2015

Vol. 45, No. 6, 840–862, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2014.929489

Different moves, similar outcomes: a comparison of Chinese and

Swedish preschool teacher education programmes and the
revisions
Keang-ieng Peggy Vonga*, Bi Ying Hua and Yan-ping Xiab
a
Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macau-SAR, China; bFaculty of
Education, Lanzhou College, Lanzhou, China

A Chinese and a Swedish preschool teacher education programme were

examined in search for commonalities and differences of the curriculum
decision-making considerations involved in the respective programme
revision process. Findings include: (1) the two programmes have shifted
orientations and become similar, yet there was no fundamental paradig-
matic shift after the revisions; (2) the Swedish programme has been
heavily influenced by political agenda and national curriculum guide-
lines, while the Chinese one gives considerable attention to the opinions
from the preschool circle; (3) the discussion of programme revision
revolved around the diverse views of quality preschool education and
teacher education; and (4) a strong relationship between the institu-
tional/organisational features identified and the programme orientations
was found. The empirical data suggested teacher educators’ professional
views of quality preschool education and organisational/institutional
characteristics are critical to the curriculum decision-making in the spe-
cific contexts.
Keywords: preschool teacher education; programme revision; institu-
tional/organisational culture; curriculum decision-making

Introduction
Teacher education reforms have recently been enacted in various countries,
the USA (Mueller, Wisneski, and File 2010), Australia (Krieg 2010) and
Ireland (Moloney 2010), to name but a few. The type of programme modifi-
cation varies according to specific contexts, from the inclusion of cultural
and diversity elements (Lim et al. 2009), and re-conceptualising high-quality
teacher education (Loizou 2009), to meeting new government policies and
standards (Moloney 2010). There have also been debates on methodological
versus theoretical training, content and structure, and departmental responsi-
bilities of instruction (Winther-Jensen 1990). Sometimes, government and
teacher educators disagree on the direction and nature of change (Benner

*Corresponding author. Email: peggykiv@umac.mo

© 2014 British Association for International and Comparative Education
 Compare 841

and Hatch 2010). The former tends to emphasise the establishment of stan-
dards and accountability, while the latter is more concerned with what con-
stitutes high-quality teacher education (Furlong et al. 2000).
In China, the latest wave of educational reform occurred in the 1980s.
Government policies called for integration of teacher education institutions
with comprehensive universities (Shi and Englert 2008) and amalgamation
of higher-education institutions to improve use of resources (Sung 2000).
Comprehensive colleges and universities began to offer teacher preparation
programmes to actualise what some scholars call ‘a new professional tea-
cher education model’ (Zhu and Han 2006, 67). The amalgamation of uni-
versities and programmes in teacher education was ongoing until 2007 and
the Lanzhou Preschool Teacher Normal School in this study merged with a
comprehensive college. Many of the reform ideas were borrowed from the
West (Fang and Li 2010). Non-Anglophone cultures often take ideas from
educational models of Anglophone cultures and developing countries from
developed (Bray 2007). But adoption with little scrutiny of the models’
transferability has been criticised (Dimmock 2007).
In Sweden, due to both policy changes and high school students’ unsat-
isfactory international assessment results, such as in the Programme for
International Student Assessment tests, the Swedish government called for
another Professional Teacher Education Programme (PTEP) revision in
2008, 10 years after the previous teacher education reform in 1998. The
new focus would emphasise children’s learning outcomes in domains such
as languages, science and mathematics, and changes in pedagogical strate-
gies (Pramling-Samuelsson and Sheridan 2010). Nonetheless, Swedish edu-
cators have debated the possible consequences of such an outcome-based
approach (Tallberg-Broman 2009).
Central to this article is the direction of these two PTEP revisions, in China
and Sweden. In particular, it explores the professional considerations of the
two curriculum decision-making processes in relation to their respective
organisational/institutional cultures as such a relationship has received little
attention. First, a literature review section, which delineates the role(s) of
decision-making in educational reform, especially in teacher education, and
the known characteristics of institutional/organisational cultures in the litera-
ture will be illustrated. Next, the context descriptions and methodology, which
includes analysis of programme documents, author’s journal records and inter-
view responses obtained from teacher educators and preschool teachers, will
follow. The findings will furnish evidence to show the influences and critical
considerations during the process, before a discussion is provided.

Decision-making in educational reform

Mueller, Wisneski, and File (2010) presented a complex picture of the
teacher education programme improvement process, which took into
842 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

account: government interests; philosophical ideas and traditional content of

teacher education; responsiveness to societal change; and qualities of future
teachers. Dilemmas have been reported in the decision-making processes,
for curriculum modification is inherently complex (Short 1987). Firstly, at
the practical level, practitioners’ perspective of teacher qualities may be
ignored or differ from governmental ideologies. Secondly, from a social per-
spective, diverse perceptions of ‘society and education’ often lead to com-
peting expectations for learning outcomes and teaching (Wang et al. 2010,
395). Thirdly, the kinds and forms of knowledge and competency that future
teachers should possess are often controversial (Griffin 2001). These multi-
level concerns require concurrent consideration by teacher educators during
programme revision since stakeholders’ interests vary. Yet, as professionals,
teacher educators are seldom granted full discretion or professional auton-
omy during the decision-making process (Furlong 2002).

Curriculum decision-making in teacher education

Zeichner (1983) outlined four major paradigms of teacher education in the
USA. Each model is conceptualised upon a distinct set of philosophical ideas
and assumptions regarding teacher education and learning. Behaviouristic
teacher education emphasises teachers’ specific and observable skills. The
Personalistic paradigm takes a humanistic approach, considering teacher edu-
cation the process of becoming a teacher. The Traditional-Craft model is
founded on the mentor–apprentice relationship, where the apprentice learns
passively from the experienced mentor. The Enquiry-Oriented is inquisitive
and reflective in nature. Nonetheless, the complex cultural and context-
specific aspects that can lead to disparate views and models of teacher educa-
tion have not been highlighted and explained. As Short (1987) cautioned,
‘What needs to be decided can vary considerably from one institution to
another depending upon the requirements of the different policies adopted’
(5). More recently, in Israel, Yogev and Michaeli (2011) developed an
alternative, context-specific model of teacher education, embedded in strong
awareness of local social and cultural aspects, and commitment to
community service. This line of thinking indicates the pivotal importance of
professionals’ ideologies and knowledge in the process.
In recent years, the conceptualisation of teacher education has become
increasingly challenging due to the escalating political and economic tension
created by global competition (Loomis, Rodriguez, and Tillman 2008).
Together with increasing awareness amongst teacher educators that curricu-
lum decision-making should also consider context-specific factors (Wang
et al. 2011), these global phenomena further complicate the decision-making
process for change.
 Compare 843

Understanding teacher education, understanding organisational cultures

The immediate environment in which teacher education is incubated and
developed is the educational organisation. According to Dimmock (2007),
societal and organisational/institutional culture has various dimensions: some
societies are power-concentrated, others power-dispersed. Some are group-
oriented, others individual-oriented. Some uphold limited relationships,
others holistic relationships. At the organisational/institutional level, the vari-
ous dimensions include process-oriented versus outcome-oriented; person-
oriented versus task-oriented; professional versus parochial; open versus
closed; control versus linkage or communication; pragmatic versus norma-
tive natures. To understand teacher education, it would be useful to
understand its organisational/institutional cultures, through all or some of
these elements. Experts in the field of comparative education have illustrated
a cubic framework encompassing different levels, groups and aspects to
facilitate comparative analysis (Bray, Adamson, and Mason 2007). The inter-
connectedness of the various facets implies that education is embedded in
multi-faceted contexts. Relevant to this study is the fact that programme revi-
sion processes may be related to their organisational/institutional cultures.
This study explored three questions: (1) What are the institutional/organi-
sational cultures as reflected by the special features of the two PTEPs? (2)
Amongst different stakeholders’ views, which considerations actually led to
decisions on the two new PTEP designs? (3) Is there a relationship between
organisational/institutional culture and PTEP orientation? It is hypothesised
that: (1) as globalisation intensifies, different PTEP designs will look more
alike after revision; (2) organisational/institutional culture is related to pro-
gramme orientation; and (3) given the hierarchical nature of the Chinese
social system, the decision-making process is much more influenced by the
authorities in China than in Sweden.

The present study

Scholars interested in understanding teacher education in various contexts
often adopt a comparative approach (Vonk 1991). Here, two teacher educa-
tion institutions were studied for cross-cultural comparative purposes: one
situated in Lanzhou City in China, the other in Malmö, Sweden. The two
countries differ in culture, history and social and political structures. In
terms of national structures, the Chinese and Swedish societies fall into
Dimmock’s dichotomy of culture types. The Chinese social system is gener-
ally perceived as hierarchical and collectivistic, with concentrated decision-
making power, while the Swedish system, embedded in Nordic culture, is
often perceived as democratic and individual-oriented, with dispersed deci-
sion-making power. Nonetheless, a comparison of institutions in the two
countries is justifiable. Firstly, Canen (1995, cited in Manzon 2007) argued
844 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

that comparative studies of countries with apparently huge contextual

differences can reveal significant commonalities at a deeper level. Secondly,
others have argued that comparative studies of issues in dissimilar cultures
can actually mitigate concerns about the generalisability of findings
(Nordhaug et al. 2010). Thirdly, as Han and Jarvis (2014) suggested, ‘much
education … still endeavours to capture some of the indigenous culture of
the country in which it is offered’ (2). Still another reason for this study is
the emerging trend of comparative studies between dissimilar countries (see
also Nordhaug et al. 2010). Nevertheless, comparative studies on teacher
education between China and Northern Europe remain few.
More importantly, at the secondary level, the two teacher education insti-
tutions identified actually bear some similarities. Both PTEPs are located in
third-tier cities and the staffing is mixed with researchers and experienced
mentors. Unlike teacher education programmes in capital cities that foster
future academics and researchers, both PTEPs supply frontline teachers. At
the time of this study, both had recently received government and adminis-
trative directives to revise their PTEP in order to improve the quality of pre-
school education. Both had recently gone through a kind of selection
process aimed at screening institutions that could continue to offer PTEP.
For both, therefore, maintaining programme specificities and competitive-
ness was essential. Considering these inherent commonalities, comparing
the two systems becomes more natural.

Methods and procedures

The main data collection period lasted six months. The first author stayed in
China (August to October 2010) and then Sweden (November 2010 to
January 2011) as a visiting scholar. Both institutions’ programme booklets
were collected. A total of 18 teacher educators (8 teacher educators and 1
programme supervisor from each country) and 20 preschool teachers (10
from each, working in 4 different kindergartens) were interviewed. The prac-
titioners recruited were graduates of the two teacher education programmes
of this study. Convenience sampling was chosen for this study as graduates
tended to be scattered, many originally residing far from the institutions, and
most either returned to their home town or sought job opportunities in other
cities. Vonk’s (1991) model, which takes into account the contextual or back-
ground (e.g. preschool education system, educational policy) and conceptual
or programme design aspects (e.g. programme structure, staff composition,
goal, subject studies) of teacher education, is adopted to set a framework for
identifying programme specificities in terms of organisational/institutional
culture and programme design. The same model directed the design of eight
semi-structured questions for use in the interviews to tap into teacher educa-
tors’ perspectives in terms of their understanding and interpretation of poli-
cies, ideas of preschool education, current preschool practices and the link
 Compare 845

between teacher education and preschool education. Each interview lasted

around 50–70 minutes and was audio-recorded. Besides conducting the on-
site interviews, the first author kept a journal to record her observations at
both institutions as well as informal conversations with the teacher educators
and preschool teachers. She also recorded her observations and understand-
ing of preschools and classroom activities. Two graduate students transcribed
the interview data. Translation of Swedish documents into English was
assisted by various teacher educators in Sweden and the Chinese documents
were translated into English by the first author.

Data analysis
The qualitative research methods included, firstly, utilising documents that
identified itemised features from the programme booklets and student hand-
books. Specificities of the Chinese and Swedish PTEPs were drawn from
document analysis of the versions that were in effect during the academic
year 2009–2010 – a newly revised version of the Chinese PTEP (Teaching
Scheme 2009) and the still-effective Swedish PTEP (Barn Unga Samhälle
2010). Before the latest revisions, the Chinese PTEP was somewhat similar
to the Behaviouristic paradigm, while the Swedish PTEP shared features
with the Enquiry approach. The comparison of these two programmes will
reveal whether the recent Chinese PTEP has taken ideas from developed
countries and therefore changed paradigmatically. Through personal inter-
views, we examined the process of the two PTEP revisions and the underly-
ing considerations, hoping this examination will lead to a better
understanding of the teacher education paradigm towards which the Swedish
PTEP was moving. Moreover, since the PTEPs are under different education
systems, examination of their considerations and moves during the decision-
making process will lead to an understanding of the impact of the transmis-
sion of educational ideas that comes with globalisation. The special features
of the two PTEPs were identified according to the institutional and curricu-
lum schemes shown in Figure 1.
Secondly, content analysis was used to analyse and interpret the inter-
view data. Content analysis has been used as a tool of inquiry in many
fields and can serve the purpose of comparative analysis (Wang 1999).
According to Santangelo (2009), content analysis allows ‘searching for pat-
terns, integrating and synthesising emerging themes, seeking additional data
to support or challenge the findings, and eventually distilling meaning’
(192). Preschool visits were possible during the first author’s three months
in each institution and field experience was gained through general observa-
tions of institutional atmosphere, meeting attendance and informal conversa-
tions with teacher educators and preschool teachers. All these field
experiences form the background of the content analysis procedures. The
interview data were transcribed in full. Then all the authors read and reread
846 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

Conceptual Features of Professional Teacher Education Programmes (PTEPs)

Institution
Structure of programme
Composition of staff
Curriculum
Goal
Professional preparation
Subject-knowledge
Educational studies
Professional studies
Teaching practice

Context

Preschool educational system Educational policy

View on function of PTEP
Regulation over PTEP

Figure 1. Context and programme specificities.

Source: Model adapted from Vonk (1991).

the transcriptions in search of patterns and common and dissimilar ideas.

Ideas of similar patterns were collapsed to form themes or sub-themes. The
first author, with her first-hand experience of the two sites of study, inte-
grated some sub-themes with those already identified. The remaining sub-
themes were either abandoned, if considered irrelevant, or grouped as
another theme potentially capable of giving some meaning to the two pro-
gramme revision processes. Finally, data triangulation (Slavin 2007) was
employed: information from the contextual and conceptual levels, immediate
responses to interview questions regarding the revision processes, and the
reflective journals were cross-examined to verify the interpretations derived
from all the data collected.

Contextual background: preschool educational systems and new PTEP

policies
China’s preschool education system and policies
In China, though preschool education has gained increasing attention from
the government, it is still outside the compulsory education scheme, which
covers nine years of foundational education (six years of primary and three
years of lower-secondary education) (Pang and Han 2010). Most Chinese
preschools are privately owned by individual entrepreneurs and each has its
own curriculum, which, depending on the preschool’s scale and quality,
might cater to parents’ ideas rather than the governmental concepts of pre-
school education stated in the Guidelines for Kindergarten Education – Trial
Version (known as ‘the Guidelines’). Generally speaking, children’s artistic
 Compare 847

skills in dancing, singing, drawing and literacy and numeracy are highly
valued by preschools and parents (Tang 2006). The preschool curricula are
generally market-driven and can create challenges for teacher preparation
programmes (i.e., preschools depend on parents to ‘buy’ their services and
their ‘approval’ of curriculum design is essential to schools’ survival).
Moreover, at the time of the study, there were no national guidelines for
PTEP in China and there had been much debate about the qualities PTEP
should involve (Zeng 2004). Teacher educators use the Guidelines, which
suggest goals and objectives and touch on play as an approach for preschool
education, as a reference for their programme revision. Even the Guidelines
make no mention of the specific roles and functions of preschool teachers
besides being facilitators of children’s learning.
When this research began, the PTEP studied in China, which prepared
teachers for preschool children aged three to six, had just been revised. The
revised version was launched in September 2010. One major change was an
increase in general subject studies and a reduction of courses in artistic
skills training.

Sweden’s preschool education system and policies

In Sweden, most preschools are public, while the few private preschools are
in one way or another subsidised by the government. In principle, all pre-
schools have to observe the goals stated in the official plan. Before 2008,
this was Lpfö 98 (Kaga 2007). Visits to the preschools revealed that existing
curricula comprised supervised free play in both indoor and outdoor envi-
ronments. According to the preschool teachers interviewed, some parents
did not support the play approach and teachers would show them Lpfö 98,
and later Lpfö 98/2010, which covered preschool teachers’ roles and func-
tions and how to teach through play. Thus, based on the government’s
involvement and the official documents, as well as the preschool teachers’
utilisation of such documents, it appears that preschool education is not
merely a welfare service for Swedish parents, but serves to channel the gov-
ernment’s ideas of preschool education, which include promoting social val-
ues such as equality, social cohesion and democracy, to the general public
(Brodin and Renblad 2014).
Rooted in Nordic welfare policy, the establishment of preschools in
Sweden is associated with family or social or labour policies (Nikko and
Ugaste 2012). Swedish preschools partly fulfil the welfare state’s duty to offer
affordable education, manifest policy agendas and contribute to the economy
by sharing a big part of childcare to encourage mothers to join the workforce
(Tallberg-Broman 2009). Research has shown that decision-making about
teacher education in some European countries has been increasingly
government-led or centralised since the late 1980s (Vonk 1991). With the lat-
est Lpfö 98/2010, the Swedish government’s focus on preschool teachers’
848 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

responsibilities for children’s learning and development displaced that of Lpfö

98, setting a different agenda for teacher education, such as offering training
in teaching methods (Pramling-Samuelsson and Sheridan 2010).
Within the institutions in this study, the preschool education department
prepared student teachers for preschool education (children aged 1 to 5),
preschool class (6-year-olds) and lower primary education (7 to 9) (National
Agency for Education, Stockholm 2006). The call for programme revision
across Sweden was loudest in 2008 and the new programme was expected
to commence in the academic year 2011. During this study, there were
numerous meetings within the institution to discuss and reflect on the
changes to be made to the Lpfö 98-guided PTEP.

Findings
Programme features: the conceptual aspect of PTEPs
One of the questions of this study was: What are the institutional/organisa-
tional cultures as reflected by the special features of the two PTEPs? The
specificities identified from the programme booklets of the two PTEPs, pre-
sented in Appendix 1, showed distinctive differences in the programmes’
design, in particular, the curriculum goals and objectives, as well as the
institutional definition of teacher qualities. Through the programme specific-
ities, the context-specific institutional cultures suggested by Dimmock
(2007) were identified.
Historically, the Chinese PTEP emphasised training in dancing, singing,
piano and drawing skills, which had long been teacher qualities valued by
preschool teacher educators and preschool teachers. The programme is now
geared to sharpening student teachers’ proficiencies in English and computer
science and building theoretical foundation in various disciplines such as
politics, psychology and philosophy. The ‘new’ preschool teacher image is
associated with academic thinking and acquisition of general knowledge,
rather than mastery of artistic and pedagogical skills. This new PTEP
orientation highlights the management’s concern with the programme’s
popularity amongst high school graduates investigating higher education
and future job opportunities. Meanwhile, the subject-by-subject, teaching-
method-by-teaching-method approach, which prevailed in the Chinese
PTEPs, remains unchanged. This approach might actually lead to a
fragmented set of professional studies and hinder student teachers’ critical
and reflective thinking. In sum, the Chinese PTEP still emphasises subject-
knowledge and pedagogical skill acquisition. In China, the guidelines
regulating preschool teacher education are inadequate or loose. The teacher
educators had to observe the new management’s conceptions of preschool
teacher education, which value general knowledge acquisition and theoreti-
cal understanding rather than skills-building as a means to improve the
 Compare 849

quality of future preschool teachers. This phenomenon widens the gap

between the PTEP and preschool practices. The result of the amalgamation
accentuated the normative nature of the programme as the revised PTEP
was expected to serve the new management’s ideas of teacher education
rather than provide the competence required. Moreover, the subject-by-
subject approach, and the lack of emphasis on teaching and learning
through reflective discussion and project work, revealed the Chinese PTEP
as primarily outcome-oriented.
In Sweden, the Lpfö 98-guided PTEP stated no specific goals but pro-
moted the idea that education should be a continuous process and teachers
across different stages of schooling should share knowledge of teaching and
learning. Preschool teachers should embrace broad concepts of preschool
education, such as children and society and perspectives of childhood, when
working with children. They should also be aware of their role to promote
core social values such as democracy and equality. The Swedish PTEP thus
provided future teachers of all stages of schooling with a broad and shared
professional knowledge and concept of education. Meanwhile, the profes-
sional studies stressed integration of, and reflection on, ideas such as pre-
school education and society, and didactics for children’s learning. These
programme characteristics reflected a child-centred orientation and the social
functions of preschools. They showed that the Lpfö 98-guided PTEP valued
a shared social mission, a shared knowledge base, and was designed for stu-
dent teachers’ long-term development as practitioners. But no course offered
substantial subject-knowledge or thorough pedagogical training. However,
the new Lpfö 98/2010, which urges the PTEP to narrow its focus to educat-
ing preschool teachers, expects future preschool teachers to possess substan-
tial subject-knowledge and certain pedagogical strategies. The new
government placed greater emphasis on young children’s learning outcomes
and teachers’ responsibility to help children attain them (SOU 2008). None-
theless, the PTEP remains process-oriented as integration of educational
ideas, project-based work and reflective teaching and writing were unaf-
fected. Broad perspectives of PTEP were at the core of the programme,
making it pragmatic or flexible, rather than rigid and structural.
In short, the Chinese programme was characterised by a closed (e.g. little
genuine communication between administration, teacher educators and other
stakeholders), outcome-based (e.g. emphasis on examinations and job seek-
ing) and normative (e.g. meeting the administration’s ideas instead of practi-
tioners’) organisational culture. In the Swedish case, the programme was
marked by the formality of teacher education (e.g. where rules are relatively
clear) and pragmatic features (e.g. considering student needs for flexible
timetables and alternative pedagogies), while it was also process-oriented
(e.g. stressing discussions, reflections through project work) and exerted
professional effort to meet international standards (e.g. focus on play-based
preschool education).
850 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

Contradictory opinions and direction of the new PTEPs

The second question asked in this study was: Amongst different stakeholders’
views, which considerations actually led to decisions on the two new PTEP
designs? Analysis of teacher educators’ and practitioners’ responses to the
interview questions revealed contradictory forces in the programme revision
processes that impacted the curriculum decision-making.

Government policies and administrative perspectives

There had been much complaint amongst the Chinese preschool teacher
educators concerning the quality of the PTEP under the new management.
The programme supervisor commented that:

They [the upper management] think that … the programme should offer more
general courses, theoretical courses and reading time. … Consequently …
contact hours on subjects related to arts and skill practice time have been
reduced. (Interview, Chinese teacher educator (CTE), 20.09.2010)

The interviews revealed that the upper-management’s interpretation of a

full-degree PTEP is far from matching the teacher educators’ views, and the
core focus was on more general subjects, presumably in the interests of
wider job opportunities.
In the Swedish case, the strongest message was that the new govern-
ment’s expectations for assessment of learning outcomes had to be met.
However, the general opinion within the department was that the new focus
on subject teaching and learning would narrow the scope of educational and
professional studies that had been favoured by Swedish teacher educators.
As the Swedish programme supervisor explained:

Teacher education is politically run. … And there will be more subject-based

learning, such as mathematics, language and science, you know, our existing
approach to theories and knowledge had been integrative and conceptually
broad. (Interview, Swedish teacher educator (STE), 29.11.10)

In both cases, the administrators’ responses revealed that the primary con-
sideration of the direction for change was based on a top-down perception
of the PTEP. So far, it seems that the authorities’ views determined both
PTEP revisions.

Preschool teachers’ ideas

In China, local preschools demanded consideration of the PTEP’s practical-
ity. They strongly believed that preschool teachers should be skilled, partic-
ularly trained in the technical aspects of artistic skills, rather than learning
general theories in subject areas other than preschool education. Deputy
Heads from renowned public and private preschools supported the
 Compare 851

skill-building approach and pointed out a widening gap between the PTEP
and practice. This view was shared by senior teachers at both public and
private preschools. One deputy head teacher concluded that, ‘… frontline
teachers should be competent in teaching techniques and not theories. It is
worrying that the students are now not getting enough training in artistic
skills’ (Interview, Chinese kindergarten teacher (CKT), 16.09.2010).
Due to the close link between teacher educators and preschools in terms
of student placement arrangements, the preschool administrators’ views
were seriously considered during the decision-making process. These opin-
ions were often mentioned by the programme supervisor during mealtimes.
Likewise, in Sweden, according to most of the preschool teachers inter-
viewed, there was a discrepancy between the Lpfö 98-guided PTEP and
classroom practice as substantial subject-knowledge and specific teaching
methods were lacking. Most in-service preschool teachers found their pre-
service training from the then PTEP irrelevant to preschool education in
reality. One stated that she had learned more about the necessary pedagogies
from experienced colleagues than her previous training.
Other preschool teachers also argued for more courses on subject-knowl-
edge and teaching methods, which they considered lacking in the Lpfö Plan
98-guided PTEP. One said, ‘I like visual arts and would like children to be
creative. But I don’t have the pedagogies’ (Interview, Swedish preschool
teacher (SPT), 06.12.2010). However, when the preschool teachers’
responses were mentioned in the programme supervisor’s interview, they
were given little attention. She frankly stated that, ‘… preschools have no
influence on teacher education’ (Interview, STE, 29.11.10).

Teacher educators’ professional considerations

As mentioned earlier, the Chinese PTEP in this study provides student teachers
with artistic skills and teaching methods to deliver subject-knowledge. Indeed,
student teachers from this PTEP have won many national contests in performing
arts. Most of the teacher educators interviewed disagreed with the new manage-
ment’s policies to reduce training in these skills while increasing the quantity of
general knowledge for various disciplines. The music and dance teachers raised
the importance of applying professional knowledge of preschool education and
child development in PTEP curriculum decision-making:

There are now too many general education courses … that are theory-based
… the non-professionals are leading the professionals … many activities and
events in preschools require teachers’ mastery of singing and dancing skills.
Young children also love singing and dancing which bring joy and harmony.
(Journal, CTE, 03.09.10)

Taken together, it appears that the Behaviouristic teacher education model was
still supported by teacher educators as artistic skills are valued by preschool
852 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

educators and dominate the learning atmosphere. Moreover, the artistic

domains have constituted the strongest domain in the PTEP and made the pro-
gramme stand out. Under the amalgamation of institutions, teacher educators’
concern about maintaining programme specificities and competitiveness in
preschool teacher education was obvious. Consequently, a substantial amount
of credit hours for artistic skills training and the outcome-related, teacher-
directed, teaching-method-by-teaching-method approach remains unchanged.
In the Swedish institution, most teacher educators interviewed were con-
cerned about preschool teachers’ professionalism and the limitations of the
Lpfö 98-guided PTEP. They thus partially supported the government’s direc-
tion for change. In the interviews, there were mixed opinions about the sug-
gested changes in terms of making the future PTEP more subject-oriented
and outcome-based. Some thought that enriching subject-knowledge was
important, but rejected the outcome-based idea. More importantly, many
were confused by the Lpfö Plan 98-guided PTEP’s requirement that student
teachers learn broad concepts of education and take courses pertaining to all
stages of education. Careful consideration had been given to improving the
professional image of preschool teachers, and teacher educators welcomed
the focus on the preschool stage under Lpfö Plan 98/2010. Most teacher
educators insisted on maintaining an integrative approach in delivering the
concepts of preschool education and handling subject-knowledge through
didactics within the play and learning discourse, a method they deeply
believe in. A language teacher who was also a curriculum revision panel
member explained that:

… there is now too little on school subjects. … In 2011, the elective courses
[i.e., general education subjects] will be reduced and there will be more sub-
ject-based courses, to give our students knowledge in science, mathematics,
language, but they will be fitted into an integrative approach, for example,
the pedagogies will be introduced through play and after handling subject-
knowledge. (Interview, STE, 04.01.11)

In sum, acknowledgement of the local preschools’ comments is more

noticeable in the Chinese case than in the Swedish. The preschool practice
in the market-oriented Chinese context offers a practical reference for the
Chinese PTEP. The interviews revealed the parochial nature of the Chinese
PTEP since seeking references in the communities with which they work
closely was important. In the Swedish institution, the call for reform came
strongly from a government that supports all preschools. There is great pres-
sure to implement the government’s ideas for both teacher education and
preschools. The perspectives of teacher educators, in the Swedish case,
showed the outward reference nature of the Swedish institution, that is, to
remain competitive at national and international levels. Nonetheless, it
appears that the anchor points for curriculum decision-making in both
teacher education institutions rested upon the teacher educators’ perception
 Compare 853

of the quality of preschool education, despite the different factors to be con-

sidered. Such beliefs and perceptions are associated with the organisational/
institutional cultures of the two PTEPs. The decision-making process of
PTEP revision of the Chinese case involved serious consideration of the
perception of high-quality preschool education and programme specificities
that could lead to sustainable development of a PTEP. Meanwhile, the
Swedish teachers’ curriculum decision-making deferred to the new govern-
ment’s ideas of preschool teacher education but supported by their judgment
that quality preschool practice should be play-based and that preschool
teachers should be reflective in order to integrate knowledge when working
with children.

Context-specific organisational/institutional cultures and new programme

orientation
This study also seeks to understand whether the orientation of PTEP revi-
sions is related to institutional/organisational culture. The programme
designs compared, and the interview data, indicated that the institutional
culture and PTEP design were evidently related in both countries. For
example, the parochial dimension of preschool teacher education, which
places value on the community teachers work in, can explain why the
Chinese PTEP insists on training preschool teachers with the necessary
skills and qualities required by preschools and parents. In contrast, the
professional or outward reference nature of the Swedish institution, which
seeks international references for its programme, can explain why the pro-
gramme is designed with play and an integrative pedagogy, an approach
recognised and widely practiced by preschool education professionals inter-
nationally. The outcome-oriented culture, which emphasises examinations
and results and has long existed in the Chinese education system (Tang and
Biggs 1996), provides the basis for an outcome-oriented Chinese PTEP,
though it has been controversial even amongst Chinese educators. The
process-based model evident in the Swedish PTEP encourages proactive
and reflective thinking in teaching modes and designs and assessment. The
programme revision process in China lacked communication amongst
upper-management, teacher educators and preschool teachers, and even
amongst teacher educators in the programme. A science teacher commented,
‘Discussions? How can I say it? We are at the bottom and the decisions
have already been made’ (Interview, CTE, 22.09.10). Chinese teacher edu-
cators complained that the upper-management did not understand the pre-
school education scenario (Journal record, 11.9.2010). This closed culture
led to dissatisfaction with the general studies courses, which were seen as
taking space that should have been devoted to skills-building (Journal
record, 8.10.2010). Meanwhile, the Swedish programme revision involved
854 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

whole-group and small-group meetings, though they picked up momentum

only at the later stages of the revision process (Journal record, 10.1.2011).
This open culture, at least amongst the teacher educators and their heads,
was reflected in the relatively flexible integration of governmental ideas of
preschool teacher education into the new PTEP Lpfö 98/2010. The compo-
nents suggested, such as language and science courses, were added by
removing some elective courses that were too general, to avoid sacrificing
the professional courses and to strengthen teaching methods by revising
courses on pedagogies to emphasise ways to work with children. Thus, the
two cases confirmed that the PTEP revisions were linked with institutional/
organisational culture.

Discussion
This study attempts cross-cultural scrutiny of the differences and similarities
of the decision-making processes during the revision of two PTEPs, in
terms of the institutional/organisational cultures, professional considerations,
and relation between institutional/organisational culture and PTEP orienta-
tion.

Skewed triangular relationships of policies, professional perception and

practice
As Mueller, Wisneski, and File (2010) described, the fact that teacher edu-
cators cannot control programme revision processes requires careful consid-
eration and balancing of the different views. During the process, the
preschool educational system, the policy context and PTEP design form the
basic triangular relationship discussed by Vonk (1991). But the relationship
is skewed: the latest revision of the Chinese PTEP has maintained an artistic
skill orientation, which is linked to the reality of preschool education prac-
tice, while the new Swedish programme has moved towards the govern-
ment’s latest Lpfö 98/2010 plan. There were also more differences than
similarities in terms of the PTEPs’ curriculum goals and specificities and
various forces at play during the revision processes.
According to the findings, in China, the core ideas of the latest pro-
gramme design are the teacher educators’ consideration of what preschool
education entails and maintaining the programme’s traditions. The lack of
systematic government policies regulating PTEP and management expertise
in preschool education led to a skewing towards the preschool practice.
Realistically, with the exception of the key Normal Universities, which
focus on producing researchers, PTEPs have to compete for students who
want to be frontline teachers. This keen competition may lead to a pro-
preschool practice scenario. Also, parents are ‘buyers’ of market-driven pre-
school services and have strong say in curriculum design. Teacher educators
 Compare 855

caution that PTEPs may be overly influenced by parents’ and preschool

administrators’ conceptions of learning, hindering the programme’s profes-
sional development. The situation is unlikely to change unless the Chinese
government increases its role in preschool education by increasing expendi-
ture in this field and providing clear guidance to improve undesirable
PTEPs.
On the other hand, the teacher educators’ idea of high-quality preschool
education as play-based is at the centre of the Swedish PTEP revision.
However, the government’s stance and preschools’ views are valued differ-
ently. Teacher education is fully funded and primarily regulated by compre-
hensive government policies and preschool education is part of the welfare
system. The role of PTEP to deliver the social values of a democratic soci-
ety and promote academic learning in preschools is prominent. The extent
of government involvement in teacher education for the young reveals the
leading, if not the dominating role, of the State. As Furlong (2002) pointed
out, in some cases there is limited room for negotiating curriculum design
of teacher education. This context also deems the preschool teachers’ opin-
ions a minor factor to be considered. As a society that upholds democracy
and social justice, Sweden’s PTEP should encourage multi-lateral communi-
cation amongst stakeholders.

Re-conceptualisation leading to paradigmatic shifts?

Before the revisions, the Chinese programme in this study could be
identified with the Behaviouristic teacher education paradigm suggested by
Zeichner (1983), which emphasises teaching methods and perfecting artistic
skills. Indeed, the Chinese teacher educators and preschool teachers believed
that many Chinese children actually have fun and feel good about learning
artistic skills, which were noticeable learning outcomes, reinforcing their
belief in the longstanding approach. The new PTEP will only broaden stu-
dent teachers’ general knowledge and abstract thinking for wider occupa-
tional choice. On the other hand, the career considerations reflect the new
management’s ideas of the relationship between higher education and soci-
ety. Similar pressure is felt in teacher education in the USA (Wang et al.
2011). It all comes back to the debate on the ‘education for what’ issue.
According to the current scenario, future student teachers’ professional stud-
ies in preschool education will remain limited. The goals and objectives of
PTEP in this particular institution now seem diffuse and the new manage-
ment’s ideas have weakened the student teachers’ training as frontline prac-
titioners. This Chinese case exemplifies further that traditions and new ideas
are at times in conflict and that teacher educators often face dilemmas.
Since they believe deeply in the teaching and learning of artistic skills in
the market-driven preschool education, paradigmatic shifts of teacher educa-
tion will not be easy.
856 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

In the Swedish case, prior to programme revision, the Lpfö 98-guided

PTEP was primarily an Inquiry-Oriented teacher education programme,
stressing an inquisitive and reflective approach. Given the new govern-
ment’s expectation of a more subject-learning and outcome-based preschool
education, and concerns about the limitations of the Lpfö 98-led PTEP, the
teacher educators have re-conceptualised the focus of PTEP to meet official
demands as well as boost preschool teachers’ professional image. Indeed,
Lpfö 98/2010 has raised the status of preschool practitioners in Sweden
(Brodin and Renblad 2014). Therefore, greater emphasis on the pedagogical
part of subject-teaching and learning as well as a preschool-focused
approach became the theme of PTEP under Lpfö 98/2010. However, teacher
educators still believe in play and reflective teaching, maintaining an
enquiry approach that represents their conception of high-quality preschool
education. The new programme design is still enquiry-oriented, play-based
and emphasises integration of knowledge and didactics and student teachers’
reflective learning process.
Professional decision-making requires knowledgeable and responsible
judgment (Furlong et al. 2000), which might result in changing the nature
of a PTEP. But in neither context has the revised programme produced a
genuine paradigmatic shift in curriculum design and structure. The changes
in both PTEPs are superficial in that the preschool teacher education para-
digms upheld by either team of teacher educators are still intact. Swedish
teacher educators deeply believe in play and learning, and that pedagogies
should be about ways to work with children, while Chinese teacher educa-
tors believe in the benefits of artistic skills, subject-knowledge and teaching
methods in teacher education. As Tallberg-Broman (2009) reported, this
phenomenon highlights the thriving paradigmatic approaches in objectives
and pedagogies that are rooted in PTEP and therefore not easily changed,
despite policy changes and importation of educational ideas. Also, when
context-specific considerations are pursued, distinctive models are likely to
emerge, such as the two found in this study.

Globalisation versus organisational cultures and programme orientation

Educational ideas and approaches at all levels travel across cultural and ter-
ritorial boundaries through exchanges at conferences or visits (Furlong et al.
2000). As suggested by Loomis, Rodriguez, and Tillman (2008), the direc-
tion of teacher education can be heavily influenced by global ideas. By and
large, the ideas underlying the observed changes in both programme revi-
sions here have focused on whether to instil a more comprehensive theoreti-
cal base and a wider perspective in teacher education or to enrich them with
wider subject-knowledge and emphasis on pedagogical strategies to facili-
tate more academic studies and learning outcomes in preschool education.
This finding suggests that the debate on methodological versus theoretical
 Compare 857

training persists in different teacher education contexts (Winther-Jensen

1990). After the latest revisions of the Chinese and Swedish PTEPs, which
are embedded in geographically and culturally different contexts, the two
will look more alike than the previous versions as one comes closer to the
other from opposite sides – in terms of focus on the preschool stage,
emphasis on subject matters such as languages, mathematics and science,
and the pursuit of noticeable learning outcomes (Brodin and Renblad 2014).
This confirms the first hypothesis of this study: the Chinese government
sought Western models for ideas. For the past decade, countries around the
world have looked abroad for educational reform ideas (Han and Jarvis
2014). Asian countries’ economic performance might have set off such a
move. International assessment results may serve as a catalyst. However,
these two cases show that revised programme features will still be coherent
with the societal and institutional cultures identified and in which the pro-
grammes are embedded. The contextual and conceptual aspects of the two
PTEPs support the notion that institutional culture and context-specific and
programme-specific factors are interrelated (Dimmock 2007), and this holds
true for both programmes. This point supports the second hypothesis of this
study, namely that organisational/institutional culture is related to PTEP
design. Nonetheless, the third hypothesis is only partly confirmed. The
Chinese PTEP revisions were influenced by the upper-management’s ideas
of high-quality teachers, yet the Swedish government’s expectations strongly
impacted the decision-making process through official plans, regulations and
formal procedures of policy implementation, which signified an organisa-
tional culture that operates under the education authority.

Concluding comments
While this study did not seek to generalise its findings, common decision-
making considerations underscored both programme revisions. The deci-
sion-making guidelines suggested by earlier research for curriculum design
could not fully explain the rationale as programme designs or revisions are
responsive to the interplay amongst context-specific factors. We would
argue that ideas must be consolidated at various levels to generate a coher-
ent PTEP.
The above-mentioned findings have answered the research questions of
this study in that there are indeed culture- and contextual-specific institu-
tional/organisational features in the two sites. Also, even though the revision
of PTEP design was influenced by political agenda in the Swedish case or
voice from the preschool circle in the Chinese case, culture-specific views
of quality preschool education have accounted for the two latest PTEP ori-
entations. Moreover, the contextual-specific institutional/organisational fea-
tures are related to the views of teacher education and quality preschool
education, which is evidenced by the revised PTEP designs and teachers’
858 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

responses. What we do not know are the fundamental and cultural values of
preschool teacher education in either context and whether there is an inter-
relationship between the life stories of preschool teachers and their views of
preschool teacher education. Future studies of the historical development of
early childhood teacher education in these two sites and teacher educators’
background could deepen the interpretations of the teacher educators’
responses to the direction of programme revision.

References
Barn Unga Samhälle. 2010. Huvudämme: Barndoms-och Ungdomsvetenskap
[Childhood and Youth Science Programme]. Malmö: Malmö Högskola.
Benner, S. M., and J. A. Hatch. 2010. “From the Editors: Preparing Early Child-
hood Educators for 21st Century Children.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education 31 (2): 103–105.
Bray, M. 2007. “Actors and Purposes in Comparative Education.” In Comparative
Education Research: Approaches and Methods, edited by M. Bray, B. Adamson,
and M. Mason, 2nd ed., 19–46. Hong Kong SAR, China: Comparative Educa-
tion Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Bray, M., B. Adamson, and M. Mason. 2007. Comparative Education Research:
Approaches and Methods. 2nd ed. Hong Kong SAR, China: Comparative Edu-
cation Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Brodin, J., and K. Renblad. 2014. “Reflections on the Revised National Curriculum
for Preschool in Sweden – Interviews with the Heads.” Early Child Develop-
ment and Care 184 (2): 306–321.
Canen, A. 1995. “Teacher Education in an Intercultural Perspective: A Parallel
between Brazil and the UK.” Compare 25 (3): 227–238.
Dimmock, C. 2007. “Comparing Educational Organisations.” In Comparative Edu-
cation Research: Approaches and Methods, edited by M. Bray, B. Adamson,
and M. Mason, 1st ed., 283–299. Hong Kong SAR, China: Comparative Educa-
tion Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Fang, Z. Q., and J. Z. Li. 2010. “Enlightenment from American Teacher Education
Reform Trend [Mei Guo Jiao Shi Jiao Yu Gai Ge Xin Qu Shi Dui Zhong Guo
De Qi Shi].” Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences) 5: 28–37.
Furlong, J. 2002. “Ideology and Reform in Teacher Education in England: Some
Reflections on Cochran-Smith and Fries.” Educational Researcher 31 (6):
23–25.
Furlong, J., L. Barton, S. Miles, C. Whiting, and G. Whitty. 2000. Teacher Educa-
tion in Transition – Re-forming Professionalism? London: Open University
Press.
Griffin, G. A. 2001. “Curriculum Decision Making for Teacher Education.” Theory
into Practice 29 (1): 36–41.
Han, S. H., and P. Jarvis. 2014. “The Study of East and West in Comparative Edu-
cation, Towards a Rationale.” Comparative Education 49 (1): 1–3.
Kaga, Y. 2007. “Preschool Class for 6-Year-olds in Sweden: A Bridge between
Early Childhood and Compulsory School.” UNESCO Policy Brief on Early
Childhood 38: May–June. Accessed January 11, 2011. http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0015/001508/150815e.pdf
 Compare 859

Krieg, S. 2010. “The Professional Knowledge That Counts in Australian Contem-

porary Early Childhood Teacher Education.” Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood 11 (2): 144–155.
Lim, C. I., K. L. Maxwell, H. Able-Boone, and C. R. Zimmer. 2009. “Cultural and
Linguistic Diversity in Early Childhood Teacher Preparation: The Impact of
Contextual Characteristics on Coursework and Practice.” Early Childhood
Research Quarterly 24 (1): 64–76.
Loizou, E. 2009. “In-service Early Childhood Teachers Reflect on their Teacher
Training Programme: Reconceptualising the Case of Cyprus.” Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education 30 (3): 195–209.
Loomis, S., J. Rodriguez, and R. Tillman. 2008. “Developing into Similarity: Glo-
bal Teacher Education in the Twenty-first Century.” European Journal of Tea-
cher Education 31 (3): 233–245.
Manzon, M. 2007. “Comparing Places.” In Comparative Education Research:
Approaches and Methods, edited by M. Bray, B. Adamson, and M. Mason, 2nd
ed., 97–137. Hong Kong SAR, China: Comparative Education Research Centre,
The University of Hong Kong.
Moloney, M. 2010. “Unreasonable Expectations: The Dilemma for Pedagogues in
Delivering Policy Objectives.” European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal 18 (2): 181–198.
Mueller, J. J., D. B. Wisneski, and N. File. 2010. “Grappling with Big Ideas: The
Process of Programme Improvement.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Edu-
cation 31 (1): 71–85.
National Agency for Education. 2006. Lpfö 98. Curriculum for Preschool, 1–5
Years. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Nikko, A., and A. Ugaste. 2012. “Conception of Finnish and Estonian Preschool
Teachers’ Goals in their Pedagogical Work.” Scandinavian Journal of Educa-
tional Research 56 (5): 481–495.
Nordhaug, O., P. Gooderham, X. Zhang, Y. Y. Liu, and G. E. Birklund. 2010.
“Elite Female Business Students in China and Norway: Job-related Values and
Preferences.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 54 (2): 109–123.
Pang, L. J., and X. Y. Han. 2010. “Legislation of China’s Pre-school Education:
Reflection and Progress [Zhong Guo Xue Qian Jiao Yu Li Fa: Si Kao Yu Jin
Cheng].” Journal of the Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences) 221 (5):
14–20.
Pramling-Samuelsson, I., and S. Sheridan. 2010. “A Turning-point or a Backward
Slide: The Challenge Facing the Swedish Preschool Today.” Early Years: An
International Journal of Research and Development 30 (3): 219–227.
Santangelo, T. 2009. “Collaborative Problem Solving Effectively Implemented, but
Not Sustained: A Case for Aligning the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars.” Excep-
tional Children 75 (2): 185–209.
Shi, X. G., and P. A. J. Englert. 2008. “Reform of Teacher Education in China.”
Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 34
(4): 347–359.
Short, E. C. 1987. “Curriculum Decision Making in Teacher Education: Policies,
Programme Development, and Design.” Journal of Teacher Education 38 (4):
2–12.
Slavin, R. 2007. Educational Research in an Age of Accountability. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
SOU. 2008. A Sustainable Teacher Education [En Hållbar Lärareutbildning]. Stock-
holm: Fritzes.
860 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

Sung, L. Y. 2000. “The Great and Deep Changes – Analyses of Higher Education
Amalgamation Phenomena in China [Wei Da Er Sheng Ke De Bian Ge – Tou
Si Zhong Gou Gao Xiao He Bing Xian Xiang].” Daily News of Science and
Technology. Accessed October 18, 2011. http://www.scrtvu.net/thesis/files/lwk/
lw0634.htm
Tallberg-Broman, I. 2009. “Is There a Paradigmatic Shift within the (Swedish) Pre-
school?” In Proceedings of the Conference Concerning Nordic Research in the
Field of Early Childhood Education and Care – Quality and Relevance for Pol-
icy Making, 20–28. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Tang, C., and J. Biggs. 1996. “How Hong Kong Students Cope with Assessment.”
In The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences,
edited by D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs, 159–182. Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Tang, F. 2006. “The Child as an Active Learner: Views, Practices, and Barriers in
Chinese Early Childhood Education.” Childhood Education: International
Focus Issue: Changes in Policy and Practices: A Global View 82 (6): 342–346.
Teaching Scheme. 2009. Teaching Scheme for Preschool Education Degree Pro-
gramme [Xue Qian Jiao Yu Zhuan Ye Ben Ke Xue Fen Zhi Jiao Xue Ji Hua].
Lanzhou, Gansu: Lanzhou City College.
Vonk, H. 1991. “Some Trends in the Development of Curricula for the Professional
Preparation of Primary and Secondary School Teachers in Europe: A Compara-
tive Study.” British Journal of Educational Studies 39 (2): 117–137.
Wang, J., E. Lin, E. Spalding, S. J. Odell, and C. L. Klecka. 2011. “Understanding
Teacher Education in an Era of Globalization.” Journal of Teacher Education
62 (2): 115–120.
Wang, J., S. J. Odell, C. L. Klecka, E. Spalding, and M. Lin. 2010. “Understanding
Teacher Education Reform.” Journal of Teacher Education 61 (5): 395–402.
Wang, W. K. 1999. Educational Methodology [教育研究法; Jiao Yu Yen Jiu Fa].
5th ed. Taiwan: Wunan.
Winther-Jensen, T. 1990. “Problems of Teacher Training – Illustrated by Danish
Examples.” In Teacher Education in Europe: The Challenges Ahead, edited by
T. R. Bone and J. McCall. Conference Proceedings. Jordonhill College, Glasgow,
September 9–13.
Yogev, E., and N. Michaeli. 2011. “Teachers as Society-involved ‘Organic Intellec-
tuals’: Training Teachers in a Political Context.” Journal of Teacher Education
62 (3): 312–324.
Zeichner, K. M. 1983. “Alternative Paradigms of Teacher Education.” Journal of
Teacher Education 34 (3): 3–9.
Zeng, G. 2004. “A Brief Discussion on the Objectives and Curriculum Design of
Higher Preschool Teacher Education in the New Era [Lui Lun Xin Shi Qi Gao
Shi Xue Qian Jiao Yu Ben Ke De Pei Yan Mu Biao Yu Ke Cheng She Zhi].”
Higher Education Studies in China 4: 82–83.
Zhu, X. D., and X. Han. 2006. “Reconstruction of the Teacher Education System
in China.” International Education Journal 7 (1): 66–73.

Appendix 1. Comparison of programme design and specificities
Lanzhou, China
Institution State-owned
Structure of Dormitory system, classes are
programme from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm, five
days a week
Courses designed for preschool
teachers only
Plenty of practice time required
for piano, dancing and aerobic
skills and so on
Composition A strong team of professionals in
of staff visual arts, singing, dancing,
piano, physical education
Curriculum Produce frontline preschool
teachers
Goal All-round teachers who possess
the five qualities (morality,
intellectuality, physicality,
aestheticism, diligence) and
capacities for other job
opportunities
Professional Theories on general courses (e.g.
preparation/ Politics, English, Computer
foundation Science)
1. Subject- Subject-knowledge provided in
knowledge separate courses (e.g. Science,
Visual Art, Music, Chinese
Literacy, Mathematics)
2. Educational Courses covered a range of
studies disciplinary theories such as
Philosophy; Education;
Educational Technology
A range of elective courses
3. Professional Teaching methods taught after
studies subject-knowledge courses taken
Compare 861
Malmö, Sweden
State-owned
Day programme, classes are
spread throughout Mondays
to Fridays
Courses designed with the
concept of continuity (some
courses are for preschool
education only, others are
common to all studying to be
preschool, elementary or
leisure class teachers)
Not applicable
A few theorists or academics,
others have rich practical
experience (known as
mentors) to supervise
practicum
Produce frontline preschool
and primary school teachers
Reflective teachers with broad
professional concepts of
preschool education
Theories focused on
education for teachers of all
stages (e.g. To become a
Teacher; To be a Teacher)
Subject-knowledge cannot be
identified as separate courses
(e.g. Language and Meaning)
Courses focused on teaching
as a profession such as
Mission and Profession;
Leadership and Implications;
Research and Project Writing
A range of elective courses
Ways to work with children
integrated with conceptual
areas (e.g. Preschoolers and
Schoolers Didactics; Children
(Continued)
862 K.-i.P. Vong et al.

Appendix 1. (Continued ).
Lanzhou, China Malmö, Sweden
Conditions for Learning;
Issues and Environment)
Courses of single discipline (e.g. Courses conveyed broad
Child Psychology, Theories on concepts of preschool
Kindergarten Curriculum Design) education (e.g. Perspectives
of Childhood Identity;
History of Childhood; Play,
Culture and Communication)
Emphasised competence and skills Emphasised reflective
in arts approach and play
4. Teaching Last term of the eight-term period Practicum associated with
practice dedicated to practicum certain courses and scattered
in each of the seven terms
Students were supervised by those Supervisors were those
with practical experience only teaching the courses that were
associated with teaching
practice, disregarding
instructors’ practical
experience
Notes: For clarity, the features presented in Appendix 1 are marked as follows: similarities
are italicised; differences are in regular print; ‘Not applicable’ indicates that no equivalent
quality was found. The organisational cultures of the two teacher education institutions were
then identified from these features.