A comparative study of early childhood education and care national documents between China and Finland

S. Niu, Olli-Pekka Malinen, I. Ruokonen, Anitta Melasalmi, Signe Siklander, Xinghua Wang, Heyi Zhang, Tarja-Riitta Hurme, J. H. Moilanen, Xiaowei Li, Lijuan Wang
{"title":"A comparative study of early childhood education and care national documents between China and Finland","authors":"S. Niu, Olli-Pekka Malinen, I. Ruokonen, Anitta Melasalmi, Signe Siklander, Xinghua Wang, Heyi Zhang, Tarja-Riitta Hurme, J. H. Moilanen, Xiaowei Li, Lijuan Wang","doi":"10.3389/feduc.2024.1392920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Early childhood education and care (ECEC) serves as a crucial foundation for children’s holistic growth and lifelong learning. Despite its significance, comparative analyses of leading ECEC documents across cultures remain limited. To address this gap, our study conducts a comparative analysis to identify key aspects and examine similarities and differences in national ECEC documents from China and Finland. Methodologically, we used a triangle of researchers from China and Finland. We employed qualitative content analysis to systematically identify, examine, and compare the key aspects in these two countries from the leading ECEC documents, i.e., the Chinese national ECEC guidelines and the Finnish ECEC national core curriculum. The findings reveal numerous similarities alongside notable differences. Both countries place a high value on ECEC, emphasizing principles that shape the learning environment and use diverse pedagogical methods. However, nuanced variations exist in the approaches. The Chinese documents feature more specific guidelines tailored to different age groups, accompanied by detailed pedagogical suggestions, while the Finnish national core curriculum offers general guidelines for all preschool age groups, complemented by the unique feature of individual development plans for each child. The findings have significant implications for policymakers, ECEC educators, and practitioners in international contexts. Future studies are needed to further explore the specific pedagogies in ECEC between these two nations and to analyze how the curriculum and educational guidelines are implemented in pedagogical practices.","PeriodicalId":508739,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Education","volume":"31 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1392920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) serves as a crucial foundation for children’s holistic growth and lifelong learning. Despite its significance, comparative analyses of leading ECEC documents across cultures remain limited. To address this gap, our study conducts a comparative analysis to identify key aspects and examine similarities and differences in national ECEC documents from China and Finland. Methodologically, we used a triangle of researchers from China and Finland. We employed qualitative content analysis to systematically identify, examine, and compare the key aspects in these two countries from the leading ECEC documents, i.e., the Chinese national ECEC guidelines and the Finnish ECEC national core curriculum. The findings reveal numerous similarities alongside notable differences. Both countries place a high value on ECEC, emphasizing principles that shape the learning environment and use diverse pedagogical methods. However, nuanced variations exist in the approaches. The Chinese documents feature more specific guidelines tailored to different age groups, accompanied by detailed pedagogical suggestions, while the Finnish national core curriculum offers general guidelines for all preschool age groups, complemented by the unique feature of individual development plans for each child. The findings have significant implications for policymakers, ECEC educators, and practitioners in international contexts. Future studies are needed to further explore the specific pedagogies in ECEC between these two nations and to analyze how the curriculum and educational guidelines are implemented in pedagogical practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中芬幼儿教育与保育国家文件比较研究
幼儿教育和保育(ECEC)是儿童全面成长和终身学习的重要基础。尽管幼儿教育和保育具有重要意义,但对不同文化间主要幼儿教育和保育文件的比较分析仍然有限。为了弥补这一不足,我们的研究进行了比较分析,以确定中国和芬兰国家幼儿保育和教育文件的关键方面并研究其异同。在研究方法上,我们采用了由中国和芬兰研究人员组成的三角研究小组。我们采用定性内容分析法,从主要的幼儿保育和教育文件(即中国国家幼儿保育和教育指南和芬兰幼儿保育和教育国家核心课程)中系统地识别、研究和比较了这两个国家的关键方面。研究结果显示了许多相似之处和显著差异。两国都高度重视幼儿保育和教育,强调塑造学习环境的原则,并采用多样化的教学方法。然而,在教学方法上也存在细微差别。中国的文件针对不同年龄段的儿童制定了更为具体的指导原则,并附有详细的教学建议;而芬兰的国家核心课程则为所有学龄前儿童提供了一般性指导原则,并辅以针对每个儿童的个人发展计划这一独特之处。研究结果对政策制定者、幼儿保育和教育工作者以及国际背景下的从业人员具有重要意义。今后的研究需要进一步探讨这两个国家在幼儿保育和教育方面的具体教学方法,并分析如何在教学实践中落实课程和教育方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Future skills for Industry 4.0 integration and innovative learning for continuing engineering education Enhancing institutional integration and enjoyment among Saudi female physical education students: exploring the mediation of motivation and psychological needs satisfaction Scientific creativity in secondary students and its relationship with STEM-related attitudes, engagement and work intentions Instructor enthusiasm in online lectures: how vocal enthusiasm impacts student engagement, learning, and memory Flipping the anatomy classroom: a comparative analysis of 16-week and 8-week courses in a community college
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1