Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Cultural Heritage and Its Education Among Preschool Educators: A Convenience Sample from 11 Chinese Provinces

Abstract

Cultural heritage education promotes sustainability by fostering children’s emerging identity with local heritage and internalizing shared cultural values. In early childhood settings, these formative processes are shaped by preschool educators’ perceptions and attitudes toward cultural heritage and its teaching. This study employs a structured questionnaire to investigate preschool teachers’ cultural heritage literacy and their views on cultural heritage education, gathering data from a convenience sample of 64 valid responses from 11 provinces. Results indicate that teachers generally possess a superficial understanding of local cultural heritage and demonstrate limited emotional engagement, which affects their perceptions of the relevance and value of cultural heritage for young children. They often lack awareness in selecting meaningful content, experience contradictory expectations, and hold low expectations for fostering cultural identity. Notably, difficulty interpreting heritage meanings is associated with lower expectations. Over half of the teachers report challenges in “goal setting and evaluation” and in finding “appropriate methods to achieve goals”. Targeted training to enhance cultural heritage literacy and strengthen goal setting is therefore a priority.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage is increasingly framed as a key driver of sustainable development. Explicitly inscribed in the 2030 Agenda under SDG 11—especially target 11.4 on protecting the world’s cultural and natural heritage—it sustains identity and social cohesion, preserves intergenerational cultural diversity, deepens the sense of place underpinning resilient cities, and supports progress in education and wider social participation.

Since the modern era, large-scale cultural exchanges have become increasingly common, leading to a convergence of global cultures. This globalization poses significant challenges to the preservation of national cultural heritage, as dominant cultures threaten the integrity of many national and ethnic traditions. Concurrently, rapid scientific and technological advancements have accelerated the marginalization of humanities disciplines, such as history and literature. Against this backdrop, a pivotal question arises: what role does historical and cultural heritage play in contemporary society?

Advocates argue that heritage contributes to values [1], critical thinking [2], and civic education [3], promoting a well-rounded society. However, its deeper significance lies in addressing fundamental questions of identity: “Who am I (are we), and where do I (we) come from?” Through historical narratives, heritage education enables individuals to develop a sense of personal and cultural identity. Braudel [4] (2014) emphasized that without history, national consciousness cannot endure. Moreover, without such consciousness, independent cultures and genuine civilizations cannot sustain themselves. Thus, embracing historical and cultural heritage is crucial not only for understanding the past but also for shaping the future in a rapidly changing world.

Cultural heritage education is increasingly recognized as a fundamental right for children [5], as it supports their cultural identity and equips them for the future. In 2021, UNESCO and the European Union jointly released Teaching and Learning with Living Heritage: A Resource Kit for Teachers. This resource kit was designed to assist European educators in integrating living heritage into daily teaching for children aged 3 to 19 [6]. Similarly, national curriculum standards in countries such as Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Australia emphasize the importance of cultural heritage in fostering children’s sense of belonging and identity.

While many multicultural nations prioritize issues of cultural adaptability and national identity, China faces unique challenges. Since the modern era, traditional Chinese culture has been deeply influenced by Western industrialized civilization. Preserving the integrity of Chinese cultural identity and uncovering the intrinsic value within its historical and cultural systems have become urgent tasks. Cultural heritage education in China emphasizes transmitting core ideas embedded in heritage—such as values, cultural spirit, and aesthetic taste—to make them part of children’s cultural identity.

Over the past decade, China has introduced policies promoting cultural heritage education in schools and classrooms. However, the absence of a comprehensive curriculum system has posed significant obstacles. Educators lack clear guidance on what aspects of cultural heritage to integrate and how to implement such education effectively. Despite these challenges, many kindergartens across China have initiated cultural heritage education practices, highlighting the urgent need for structured curriculum support.

In 2023, our research team, comprising university faculty in early childhood education, doctoral students, researchers from early cultural heritage education institutions, and cultural scholars, collaborated with two kindergartens in Nanjing. Over one academic year, we explored ways to integrate local cultural heritage into teaching practices, and received positive feedback. Building on this experience, we began planning a national workshop for the summer of 2024, aimed at improving kindergarten teachers’ understanding of cultural heritage and their ability to implement such education through sustained professional development.

To design this program effectively, it is imperative to understand teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward cultural heritage and its education. This study seeks to address three core questions: (i) How do kindergarten teachers perceive and feel about cultural heritage? (ii) How do their perceptions affect their teaching practices? (iii) What challenges, biases, and knowledge gaps do teachers face in implementing cultural heritage education?

2. Defining Cultural Heritage

The term “cultural heritage” has undergone significant evolution over time, expanding from its initial focus on tangible artifacts to encompass intangible elements [7]. Scholarly definitions generally converge on three core criteria for cultural heritage: recognition by a specific community [8], its role as a collective legacy passed down through generations [9,10], and its continued relevance in contemporary society [11,12]. However, in the Chinese educational context, the term “cultural heritage” is rarely used; instead, “traditional culture” is more commonly employed.

The word “tradition” originates from Latin roots “tra” (meaning “across”) and “dit” (from “dare”, meaning “to give”), emphasizing the process of transmission [13]. The concept of “traditional culture” highlights the continuity and evolution of cultural elements from the past to the present and their relevance to contemporary life. While “cultural heritage” and “traditional culture” share overlapping meanings, the former aligns more closely with international terminology and scholarly discourse. Therefore, this study adopts the term “cultural heritage” to ensure conceptual consistency and academic precision.

In this article, cultural heritage is defined as the sum of material and spiritual wealth created by humanity to meet the needs of survival and development, collectively shared by groups and passed down across generations. This definition encompasses both classical perspectives—high culture encompassing literature, art, and philosophy—and popular perspectives, which refer to living traditions embedded in daily life. Furthermore, it includes both tangible elements and intangible aspects, such as the cultural values and beliefs that underpin these manifestations. These values, as Schwartz [14] (2006) argues, go beyond specific actions and situations, distinguishing them from narrower concepts like norms.

3. Literature Review

Existing research has explored teachers’ perceptions of cultural heritage and its integration into education. Studies consistently show that pre-service preschool teachers often hold a limited view of cultural heritage, primarily recognizing immovable heritage while neglecting intangible cultural heritage [15,16,17]. Importantly, cultural heritage is not exclusively defined by its physical components but by the values people assign to it. However, research indicates that preschool teachers’ understanding of the intrinsic meanings of cultural heritage remains inadequate [1,18]. For instance, Huo et al. [19] (2022) found that only 19% of surveyed kindergarten teachers had a clear understanding of cultural heritage value. Moreover, López-Fernández et al. [16] (2021) revealed that teachers rarely establish meaningful connections between heritage and contemporary life. This disconnection limits young children’s ability to engage meaningfully with cultural heritage [20].

Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward cultural heritage significantly shape their educational practices. Research has shown that teachers often focus on the knowledge-based aspects of cultural heritage, prioritizing surface-level learning over deeper symbolic or value-based dimensions. For instance, López-Fernández et al. [16] (2021) observed that pre-service preschool teachers tend to emphasize specific heritage knowledge, neglecting the symbolic meanings or cultural values embedded in these elements. Similarly, Li [1] (2020) found that preschool teachers often conflate the spiritual dimensions of cultural heritage (e.g., moral values) with its phenomenological aspects. This lack of clarity may lead to imbalanced allocation of educational content, with insufficient emphasis on the value-oriented aspects of cultural heritage.

Internationally, Reimers and Puskás [21] (2023) found that Swedish preschool staff engage children in traditional practices, but rarely explain the cultural or symbolic significance of these activities. This cautious approach is often motivated by a desire to avoid cultural exclusion, particularly when religious elements are involved. Conversely, in cases where teachers emphasized the symbolic meanings of cultural traditions, they sought to balance secular and religious interpretations. For example, one teacher explained to children that Easter eggs symbolize the beginning of a new and happy life, integrating cultural heritage into a meaningful narrative for young learners.

Evaluating the effectiveness of cultural heritage education continues to be a challenge. Yang et al. [22] (2019) found that over half of surveyed kindergarten teachers assessed the success of traditional culture activities based solely on children’s active participation and the smooth progression of the activities. Similarly, Huo et al. [19] (2022) noted that teachers rarely focused on children’s construction of key experiences related to traditional culture or their demonstration of culturally significant behaviors.

A review of the literature identifies several gaps in understanding teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards cultural heritage education. While teacher’s cultural heritage education has been studied across various educational stages, including primary [15,16,23] and secondary education [11,24,25,26,27], there is a relative lack of research focusing on preschool teachers. Existing studies on early childhood education primarily examine pre-service teachers [15,16,17], leaving in-service preschool teachers underexplored.

Preschool education differs significantly from primary and secondary education. While the latter often relies on formal curricula and subject-based instruction [24], early childhood education emphasizes informal and experiential learning. Preschool teachers are encouraged to adopt flexible, open-ended approaches, leveraging children’s direct experiences with cultural heritage in their daily lives. Effective methods include indigenous play-based pedagogy [28], narrative teaching techniques (e.g., storytelling, roleplay, dramatization) [29], traditional crafts (e.g., batik, clay modeling, drawing) [30], as well as foraging and gardening projects [31]. These strategies not only actively engage children but also encourage them to explore the significance of heritage in their current lives, integrating these meanings into the construction of their self-concept.

Despite substantial documentation of teachers’ conceptual understanding of cultural heritage [1,11,15,32], a notable gap persists regarding their emotional attitudes and deeper comprehension of its symbolic meanings. Similarly, while teachers’ preferences for heritage resources have been explored, the implicit criteria they use to select these resources remain unclear. Furthermore, research has rarely explored teachers’ expectations for the developmental appropriateness of cultural heritage education across age groups. It is important to examine whether their educational goals for preschool children are suitable, underestimated, or overestimated, as this directly impacts the alignment of learning outcomes with children’s developmental needs. Additionally, the challenges teachers face in implementing cultural heritage education are often described in overly general terms or omitted altogether.

4. Research Question and Aims

This study investigates preschool teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward cultural heritage and its application in educational practices. It aims to uncover conceptual biases and practical challenges they face in cultural heritage education, thereby providing theoretical foundations and practical guidance for designing effective teacher training programs.

The participating preschools are located across 11 provinces in China, involving a cohort of educators committed to improving their competence in cultural heritage education. Although their views and attitudes may not fully represent the general situation, they offer valuable insights into the current state of preschool educators who are actively engaged in advancing this field in China.

To address the research aims, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

• What is the level of preschool teachers’ understanding of local cultural heritage, including their ability to identify and interpret its significance, and how do they emotionally connect with it (e.g., through personal relevance and commitment)?
• What are preschool teachers’ attitudes toward cultural heritage education? Specifically, what types of cultural heritage resources do they prioritize, what criteria do they use for resource selection, and what are their expectations for educational goals? Additionally, what specific challenges do they encounter in integrating cultural heritage into their teaching practices?
• How do deficiencies in preschool teachers’ cultural heritage literacy (e.g., ability to identify cultural heritage, analyze its intrinsic meanings and emotionally engage with it) affect their ability to select educational resources and adopt appropriate teaching strategies for cultural heritage education?

5. Methods

5.1. Participants

This study administered electronic questionnaires to kindergarten teachers who voluntarily enrolled in a workshop designed to enhance cultural heritage education practices. To ensure accessibility across different regions, the questionnaire was designed to minimize potential barriers related to technological or network conditions, ensuring that all participants could successfully access and complete the survey. A total of 64 questionnaires were distributed, and all 64 responses were successfully collected. The sample effectively represents early childhood educators in China who are actively engaged in cultural heritage education. The participating kindergartens were predominantly high-quality institutions, with fifty (78.12%) classified as first-tier or exemplary, and nine (14.06%) as second-tier. Respondents were geographically diverse, representing East China (Beijing, Shandong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang), Central China (Shanxi, Anhui, Jiangxi, Hunan), and Southwest China (Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan). In terms of educational background, sixty teachers (93.75%) held at least a bachelor’s degree, indicating a high level of formal education. Regarding teaching experience, 9.38% had 0–3 years, 17.19% had 4–7 years, and 73.44% had over 8 years, indicating that the majority of respondents were experienced educators.

5.2. Questionnaire Development and Pilot Testing Revision

The research team developed a questionnaire to investigate and evaluate teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards cultural heritage and its education (See Supplementary Materials for the full instrument). To address the common issue of socially desirable responding—where participants may provide answers they believe are expected rather than their genuine thoughts—the questionnaire incorporated both qualitative and quantitative items. The qualitative section included open-ended questions to elicit direct feedback, while the quantitative section employed reverse-coded items (e.g., Item 5.3 and 5.4) and multiple item types to ensure reliability by assessing the same concept repeatedly. For instance, Likert-scale items were designed to evaluate educational goals (e.g., Items 5.3–5.5), while ranking questions captured participants’ prioritization of educational values (e.g., Items 10–12). Additionally, scenario-based questions were utilized to minimize response bias. Participants were asked to rank the importance of goals within realistic cultural heritage instructional contexts, rather than directly reporting their personal goal orientations or expectations. This approach encouraged participants to engage with practical teaching situations, reducing the likelihood of socially desirable responses.

The scale development process involved the following steps:

• Framework Development: The research team established a categorical framework comprising three thematic blocks: Cultural heritage literacy, Attitudes and perceptions towards cultural heritage education and Basic information (

  Table 1. Categories framework for questionnaire design and data analysis.

  Categories	Variable	Indicators	Items
  Cultural heritage literacy	Perspectives	Classical perspective; Popular perspective; Local perspective; Tourist perspective	1,2,3,4.
  	Understanding	Incorrect; Unfamiliar; Vague; Detailed
  	Emotional engagement	Indifferent; Minimal engagement; Interested; Significant; Committed
  Attitude and perceptions of cultural heritage education	Attitude	Positive/Negative	5.1.
  	Preference and selecting criteria	Type preference	7.
  		Selection criteria	8.
  	Goals setting	Goal orientation	5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5,5.6,10,11,12.
  		Expectation level
  	Challenges encountered	Resource analysis and selection	9.
  		Appropriate methods for achieving goals
  		Goal setting and evaluation
  Basic information	Kindergarten and personal information	Geographical location and level Teaching experience and educational background	Attachment: 1,2,3,4.

  ). This framework provided a structured foundation for the questionnaire design and guided subsequent data analysis.
• Item Generation: Based on a comprehensive review of the literature on cultural heritage education and insights gained from a year-long collaboration with two kindergartens in Nanjing, the research team crafted tailored items for each variable. These items included a mix of single-choice, multiple-choice, ranking, Likert-scale, and open-ended formats to capture a wide range of responses.
• Pilot Testing and Validation: A pilot test was conducted with 21 teachers from the partner kindergartens in Nanjing to validate the questionnaire’s content and structure. Feedback from the pilot confirmed the clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of the items, with no items identified as poorly performing. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the quantitative items was 0.8321, indicating high reliability. Additionally, the qualitative and scenario-based questions were well-aligned with participants’ real-world teaching experiences, offering valuable insights while requiring no further modifications.

5.3. Validation and Analysis Procedure

The finalized questionnaire was administered online to 64 kindergarten teachers who voluntarily participated in a cultural heritage education workshop. All 64 responses were successfully collected. Before conducting data analysis, the reliability of the questionnaire was assessed. During this process, two respondents were identified as having made logical errors in the ranking questions—specifically, they erroneously ranked Option 10F, which should not have been ranked alongside other options. However, as these respondents provided consistent answers to preceding questions, their responses were corrected based on their underlying logic: the erroneous option was removed, and the remaining options were reordered from D-4, E-6, F-5 to D-4, E-5. Additionally, the reliability of the combined scales measuring attitude and value orientations (Item 5) and challenges encountered (Item 9), which together assess perceptions of cultural heritage education, was confirmed with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.8209, indicating high reliability.

Data analysis was conducted at two levels. First, a systematic coding approach was applied to three open-ended questions. Textual data were organized in Microsoft Excel 2021, and researchers conducted multiple rounds of reading to familiarize themselves with the responses. Labels were assigned based on the research objectives and the categorical framework (Table 1). Relationships between labels were identified to form categories, with accuracy ensured through repeated checks. The coding process was primarily carried out by a researcher with a thorough understanding of the framework’s implications and applications. To minimize subjectivity and ensure the credibility of the analysis, the research team conducted multiple rounds of verification, documenting coding procedures and standards in detail. Second, quantitative data were analyzed using Stata 15.1 and Microsoft Excel 2021, employing descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, the coefficient of variation method, Spearman’s correlation coefficients and ordinal logistic regression analysis.

6. Results and Discussion

6.1. Most Teachers Have a Superficial Understanding and Emotional Connection

This study focuses on “local cultural heritage” due to its particular relevance for teachers who are deeply embedded in their local cultures. Such heritage is more likely to resonate with them, making it easier for teachers to engage with and recognize its significance. In cultural heritage education, local resources are more accessible and align with children’s learning characteristics, which emphasize direct experiences. These resources are closely tied to children’s daily lives, facilitating easier comprehension and engagement.

Teachers’ understanding of local cultural heritage was categorized from responses to Items 3 and 4 into four levels: “Incorrect”, “Unfamiliar (category or item name only)”, “Vague” and “Detailed (including historical, functional, value analysis)” (Figure 1). Among the respondents, four teachers provided incorrect information, mistakenly referring to non-cultural natural objects or items lacking historical evidence. Forty teachers mentioned only the category or item names without further elaboration, while seventeen offered vague descriptions such as “spiritual wealth” or “ancient wisdom”, which lacked specificity. Only three teachers provided detailed historical or functional analyses or discussed underlying values, indicating a generally superficial understanding of local cultural heritage among teachers.

In addition to understanding, teachers’ emotional connection to local cultural heritage was categorized based on responses to Item 4 into five levels: “Indifferent (none)”, “Minimal engagement (only category or item name)”, “Interested”, “Significant (meaningful to me/us)” and “Committed (willing to preserve and innovate)” (Figure 2). Overall, the majority of teachers (76.56%) lack a deep emotional connection. Eleven (17.19%) were indifferent, thirty-eight (59.36%) demonstrated minimal engagement, while only fifteen (23.43%) expressed positive emotions towards local cultural heritage.

The limited understanding and emotional connection among teachers can be attributed to several factors. First, the academic and educational communities have yet to establish a clear and universally accepted definition of cultural heritage. National policy documents often provide broad and ambiguous descriptions of traditional culture—emphasizing “core ideas and values”, “traditional virtues” and “humanistic spirit” [33]—without offering specific guidance on how these concepts translate into practical teaching content. This lack of conceptual clarity leaves teachers to rely on subjective interpretations shaped by personal experiences. The absence of a solid theoretical foundation not only hinders teachers’ understanding of local cultural heritage but also limits their ability to form deeper emotional connections with it

Second, the absence of structured training in cultural heritage education further exacerbates these issues. Most regions only offer sporadic expert lectures once or twice a year, which are insufficient for equipping teachers with the necessary knowledge and skills. According to survey data, 44.13% of kindergarten teachers reported that they had received no relevant training at all [1].

6.2. Most Teachers Acknowledge the Necessity of Cultural Heritage Education, Yet Some Perceive It as Distant from Children

An analysis of responses to Items 1 and 5.1 reveals that a significant majority (93.75%) of teachers affirm the necessity of cultural heritage education for the development of the younger generation. However, seven teachers (10.94%) perceive cultural heritage as distant from the everyday lives of children. This discrepancy highlights the need to examine the reasons behind such perceptions, which may influence the effectiveness of cultural heritage education.

To explore this viewpoint, we analyzed these teachers’ perspectives, understanding, and emotional engagement with cultural heritage (

Table 2. Teachers’ perspectives, understanding, and emotions regarding cultural heritage as distant from children.

	Perspective	Understanding	Emotional Engagement
1	Classical (Drama)	Unfamiliar	Indifferent
2	Classical (Royal Tribute) + Popular (Festivals)	Unfamiliar	Minimal Engagement
3	Classical (Royal Tribute) + Popular (Festivals)	Unfamiliar	Significant
4	Classical (Royal Tribute) + Popular (Cuisine)	Unfamiliar	Minimal Engagement
5	Classical (Drama) + Popular (Folk Games)	Unfamiliar	Minimal Engagement
6	Tourist (Town Tours)	Vague	Indifferent
7	Classical (Drama)	Unfamiliar	Indifferent

).

Firstly, six of these teachers adopt a classical perspective, emphasizing the artistic or intellectual merit of cultural heritage, viewing it as a form of “high culture” that is separate from daily life. Secondly, these teachers demonstrate limited understanding of local cultural heritage: six were “unfamiliar”, and one provided only a superficial overview, focusing on local commercial tourism from an outsider’s perspective. Lastly, in terms of emotional connection, only one teacher considered local cultural heritage “important”. Three exhibited minimal engagement, while the remaining three were categorized as “indifferent”. These findings suggest that teachers who perceive cultural heritage as distant from children tend to adopt a classical viewpoint, which is often accompanied by limited understanding and weak emotional connection to cultural heritage.

This phenomenon aligns with findings by López-Fernández et al. [16] (2021), who reported that Spanish early childhood education pre-service teachers demonstrated low awareness of heritage-related terminology (less than 1%) and underdeveloped perceptions of the connection between heritage and contemporary life.

The perceived “distance” between cultural heritage and children’s lives arises not from the nature of cultural heritage itself but from the limited perspectives of some teachers. Cultural heritage—whether in the form of classical culture, such as historical artifacts and literary masterpieces, or popular living traditions embedded in daily life—is deeply interwoven with human existence. However, some teachers fail to recognize the presence and educational significance of these cultural elements, leading to a narrow and fragmented approach to cultural heritage education. This disconnect not only weakens the alignment between educational content and children’s lived experiences but also hinders the development of a sense of belonging and cultural identity, both of which are crucial for fostering a deeper emotional connection to cultural heritage [34].

6.3. Teachers’ Preferences and Selection Criteria for Cultural Heritage Resources

The types of cultural heritage resources incorporated into the curriculum reflect teachers’ selection criteria, which are shaped by their values and perceptions of what is important. This alignment is evident in the following aspects:

Traditional Festivals and Solar Terms

These are the most frequently included resources (Figure 3). Within this category, less commonly chosen festivals like the “Winter Solstice” mainly function as seasonal markers in modern Chinese society. In contrast, festivals such as the “Spring Festival” represent iconic elements of Chinese culture. These choices align closely with the highly prioritized criterion of selecting resources based on their “relevance to the celebration of traditional festivals and solar terms” (86.89%) and “representative elements” (83.61%) (Figure 4).

Folk games and cultural relics

Folk games rank as the second most popular category, while cultural relics and monuments rank lowest (Figure 3). This suggests that teachers may prioritize resources based on their interpretation of children’s perspectives. This approach aligns with another top criterion: selecting resources that “children can encounter in their daily lives” (83.61%) and “align with children’s interests and receptivity” (85.25%) (Figure 4). Folk games, being interactive and engaging, naturally appeal to young children, while the abstract and historical nature of cultural relics may pose challenges for early learners.

Gaps in Teachers’ Awareness

There is a notable lack of awareness among teachers regarding the intrinsic value of cultural heritage resources. For instance, criteria such as “excluding content with negative ideologies, such as hierarchical privilege or violence” and “ensuring the resource has contemporary value” were the least considered, with selection rates of only 40.98% and 60.65%, respectively (Figure 4). This indicates that nearly half of the teachers rarely critically analyze the deeper cultural meanings embedded in heritage. Previous studies have similarly highlighted this issue. Du [35] (2021), Zhou [36] (2021), Li & Liu [37] (2022), and Gan [38] (2023) reported that teachers often fail to explore the profound cultural significance behind heritage artifacts. As a result, heritage education activities frequently become fragmented and superficial [15,39].

In addition to teachers’ values and perceptions, resource prioritization is shaped by learning characteristics and curriculum features at different educational stages. In early childhood education, children engage with cultural heritage through sensory experiences and exploration, making widely accessible and shared resources, such as traditional festivals and solar terms, particularly appealing. In contrast, primary and secondary education place greater emphasis on structured curricula and standardized textbooks, prioritizing resources like historical documents and archival materials that foster systematic knowledge acquisition and historical thinking [25]. Intangible heritage, such as festivals, receives less attention due to its perceived limited alignment with these academic objectives [11].

Therefore, fostering teachers’ holistic understanding of diverse cultural heritage resources and enhancing their awareness of the intrinsic value of heritage are crucial. By doing so, teachers can ensure that cultural heritage resources are appropriately valued and meaningfully integrated into teaching practices. This alignment must account for the developmental and educational goals of each stage, ensuring that cultural heritage education is both relevant and impactful.

6.4. Teachers’ Orientations and Expectation Levels for Cultural Heritage Education Goals

To accurately capture teachers’ perspectives on the goals of cultural heritage education, we used a Likert scale with non-leading goal statements (Items 5.2–5.6) and goal-ranking tasks in typical teaching scenarios (Items 10–12) to verify their views.

Firstly, our findings show that when teachers ranked the core and secondary goals for two typical cultural heritage teaching practices, “Celebrating the New Year” and “Ancient City Walls”, the goal of “knowing Spring Festival celebrating traditions” received the most votes (50.58%) as the primary goal for the “Celebrating the New Year” theme. Similarly, “building city walls with blocks” was the top choice for the “Ancient City Walls” theme, with 42.37% of the votes. These results indicate that nearly half of the teachers prioritize knowledge acquisition and hands-on exercise over the goal of nurturing cultural identity. This suggests that teachers often focus on tangible and immediate outcomes, such as acquiring factual knowledge or engaging in interactive activities, rather than emphasizing cultural identity enlightenment.

Additionally, most teachers exhibit low expectations regarding cultural identity enlightenment. Only 32.81% of teachers disagreed with the notion that “understanding the meanings of cultural heritage is not essential for children”. Meanwhile, 84.38% of teachers agreed that “if children say ‘I am Chinese’ and feel happy during traditional activities, their cultural identity is developing well.” These findings suggest that teachers tend to emphasize the entertaining aspects of cultural heritage, focusing on the superficial excitement derived from such interactions. However, research by Zheng [40] (2021) and Zheng et al. [41] (2024) highlights the significant potential of cultural heritage education in early childhood for enlightening cultural identity. This involves transitioning from mere knowledge acquisition to fostering meaning-making and emotional engagement, including developing affection and appreciation for cultural heritage.

To further explore whether teachers’ difficulty in analyzing cultural heritage connotations influences their expectations that children “do not need to derive meaning from cultural heritage”, we conducted a chi-square test. We defined “difficulty in cultural connotation analysis” as a response of strongly difficult or quite difficult to Item 9.4, assigning it a value of 1, while coding all others as 0. This variable was labeled as “Analysis Difficulty”. Similarly, responses indicating strongly agreement or agreement with the statement “no meaning-making is required” on Item 5.3 as 1, while coding all others as 0. This variable was labeled as “Cultural Understanding Expectation” (

Table 3. Results of Chi-Square test and descriptive statistics for “Analysis Difficulty” and “Cultural Understanding Expectation”.

	Cultural Understanding Expectation
Analysis Difficulty	0	1	Total
0	14	14	28
1	10	26	36
Total	24	40	64
Pearson chi2(1) = 3.3185 Pr = 0.069 Cramér’s V = 0.228

).

The chi-square test yielded a p-value of 0.069, which is slightly above the conventional 0.05 threshold, approaches statistical significance. The effect size, measured by Cramér’s V (0.228), indicates moderate practical significance. Descriptive statistics (Table 3) reveal that 26 out of 36 respondents with an “Analysis Difficulty” score of 1 also had a “Cultural Understanding Expectation” score of 1. This pattern implies that teachers who struggle with analyzing cultural heritage connotations tend to hold lower expectations for fostering cultural identity enlightenment in young children. These findings underscore the importance of addressing analytical difficulties in cultural education contexts to better support teachers in forming appropriate expectations for cultural understanding.

Furthermore, a substantial proportion of teachers (58 individuals) exhibit inconsistencies in their goal expectation levels (Figure 5). These inconsistencies manifest in two primary forms. The first involves a contradiction between Meaning-Making and Superficial Goals. Some teachers agree with the statement that children “do not need to derive meaning from cultural heritage” (strongly agree or agree with Item 5.3) while simultaneously asserting that “cultural meaning-making is a core goal” (strongly agree or agree with Item 5.4, or ranking Items 10B, 11B, or 12B as top 1 or 2 priorities). The second involves a contradiction between Knowledge Acquisition as Both a Core Goal and Not a Core Goal. Some teachers strongly agree or agree with the statement that “cultural heritage education is not primarily about knowledge acquisition” (Item 5.4) while prioritizing “information acquisition as a core goal” (ranking Item 11A as a top 1 or 2 priority). These findings highlight the complexities and contradictions in teachers’ expectations for cultural heritage education, emphasizing the need for clearer guidelines and comprehensive support in this area.

6.5. Challenges Encountered by Teachers in Cultural Heritage Education

Using the coefficient of variation method, we calculated the weight of each indicator within its respective items and found minimal variance across them (

Table 4. Challenges encountered by teachers in cultural heritage education.

Indicators	Items	Percentage	Mean	Std.	Weight	Weighted Average	Weighted Std.
Resource analysis and selection	9.1 Selecting suitable resources	53.13	2.6093	1.0176	0.2679	2.7414	1.0052
	9.2 Identifying cultural heritage elements	31.25	3.0625	0.9063	0.2033
	9.3 Ensuring exemplary elements	45.31	2.8125	1.1251	0.2748
	9.4 Analyzing cultural connotations	56.25	2.5469	0.9416	0.2540
Appropriate methods for achieving goals	9.5 Supporting cultural experiential learning	65.63	2.4531	0.8532	0.2527	2.4302	0.8406
	9.6 Stimulating interest	51.56	2.5625	0.8333	0.2363
	9.7 Encouraging sustained exploration	59.38	2.375	0.745356	0.2281
	9.8 Facilitating cultural understanding	64.06	2.3594	0.9149	0.2829
Goal setting and evaluation	9.9 Setting clear goals	68.75	2.3281	0.7979	0.3592	2.2645	0.7454
	9.10 Evaluating interests	71.88	2.2813	0.7657	0.3425
	9.11 Assessing cultural identity development	75.00	2.1875	0.6393	0.2982

In the table, “Percentage” represents the proportion of teachers who rated the item as 1 (Strongly difficult) or 2 (Quite difficult). A lower mean score indicates a greater perceived difficulty (1 = Strongly difficult, 5 = Strongly easy).

). The weighted average and standard deviations reveal that “Goal setting and evaluation” has the lowest mean score (2.2645), indicating that teachers find this area the most challenging. Specifically, survey results indicate that the most challenging tasks were “assessing young children’s cultural identity development” (75%) and “evaluating children’s interests relative to goals” (71.88%). These challenges, combined with earlier findings showing contradictory expectations among teachers about cultural heritage education goals, underscore a significant and urgent need for targeted training in goal setting and evaluation, which is foundational for effective cultural heritage education.

Following this, “Appropriate methods for achieving goals” ranked second with a mean score of 2.4302. Over half of the surveyed teachers reported difficulties in this area, which aligns with findings by Li [1] (2020) and Huo et al. [19] (2022), in which teachers expressed struggles in identifying and implementing effective methods for cultural heritage education. This reflects a broader challenge in mastering appropriate strategies for cultural heritage education.

To explore the factors influencing teachers’ ability to implement appropriate methods, this study used “Appropriate methods for achieving goals” (Items 9.5–9.8) as the dependent variable. Independent variables included “Analysis and selection of educational resources” (Items 9.1–9.4), “Goal setting and evaluation” (Items 9.9–9.11), and contextual factors such as kindergarten characteristics (location, type, and tier) and teacher characteristics (education level and years of teaching experience). Prior to regression analysis, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to identify potential predictors. This step helps determine which variables were significantly associated with the dependent variable and thus should be included in the regression models (

Table 5. Spearman correlation coefficients among Resource analysis and selection, Appropriate methods, Goal setting and evaluation, Kindergarten Tier, Teacher Experience and Education.

	9.1	9.2	9.3	9.4	9.5	9.6	9.7	9.8	9.9	9.10	9.11	Tier	Exp	Edu
9.1	1.000	0.000	0.005	0.009	0.000	0.003	0.004	0.018	0.001	0.008	0.000	0.846	0.672	0.606
9.2	0.560	1.000	0.001	0.003	0.000	0.006	0.001	0.084	0.011	0.005	0.010	0.676	0.133	0.685
9.3	0.350	0.390	1.000	0.000	0.006	0.003	0.017	0.011	0.004	0.002	0.000	0.191	0.813	0.817
9.4	0.326	0.369	0.445	1.000	0.012	0.001	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.570	0.669	0.517
9.5	0.591	0.433	0.340	0.314	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.002	0.000	0.597	0.570	0.536
9.6	0.364	0.339	0.370	0.390	0.471	1.000	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.324	0.767	0.298
9.7	0.357	0.413	0.297	0.443	0.496	0.387	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.708	0.709	0.030
9.8	0.296	0.218	0.315	0.615	0.440	0.453	0.533	1.000	0.001	0.000	0.000	0.485	0.812	0.894
9.9	0.401	0.316	0.355	0.542	0.510	0.445	0.484	0.421	1.000	0.000	0.000	0.416	0.556	0.422
9.10	0.330	0.351	0.383	0.568	0.383	0.551	0.678	0.547	0.606	1.000	0.000	0.275	0.898	0.544
9.11	0.520	0.320	0.490	0.531	0.510	0.572	0.497	0.621	0.615	0.649	1.000	0.800	0.786	0.698
Tier	−0.025	−0.053	−0.166	−0.072	0.067	−0.125	−0.048	−0.089	−0.103	−0.139	−0.032	1.000	0.969	0.001
Exp	−0.054	−0.190	−0.030	0.055	−0.072	−0.038	−0.048	0.030	−0.075	−0.016	−0.035	0.005	1.000	0.043
Edu	0.066	−0.052	−0.029	−0.083	−0.079	0.132	−0.272	−0.017	0.102	−0.077	0.049	−0.407	−0.254	1.000

In the table, the lower triangular section represents the Spearman correlation coefficients, while the upper triangular section displays the corresponding p-values. Bold red = Level 1 (p < 0.05 & |r| > 0.50); Underlined red = Level 2 (significant with DV and ≥1 Level 1, |r| > 0.40); Italic red = Level 3 (kindergarten type, teachers’ education level)

).

The Spearman correlation analysis revealed significant correlations among almost all sub-items of Item 9. However, correlations between contextual factors and sub-items were limited. Only one variable, education level, showed a significant negative correlation with Item 9.7. Additionally, since kindergarten location and type were categorical variables, and the dependent variable (Appropriate methods) was ordinal, the Mann-Whitney U test was applied to examine the impact of “region (east/west)” and “type (public/non-public)” on the dependent variable (Items 9.5–9.8). Results showed no significant influence of geographical factors (all p-values > 0.05); however, type factors significantly influenced Items 9.5 and 9.8, with p-values of 0.0102 and 0.0263, respectively.

Next, we employed ordinal logistic regression to explore factors significantly affecting appropriate methods. Given the ordinal nature of Item 9 variables, we selected variables with significant correlations and absolute correlation coefficients greater than 0.5 with the dependent variable as the first-hierarchy predictors (marked in bold red). Variables significantly correlated with both the dependent variable and at least one first-hierarchy predictor, with absolute correlation coefficients greater than 0.4, were included as second-hierarchy predictors (marked with underlined red). Based on previous analyses, type and education level were incorporated into the models as third-hierarchy predictors (marked in italic red).

Due to sparse data distribution across certain categories of the dependent variable (based on the Likert scale) and the limited sample size, which may affect the robustness of regression analysis, we simplified the dependent variable categories to ensure statistical validity. Specifically, responses of 1 and 2 were merged into a single category (new value = 1), response 3 was retained as a separate category (new value = 2), and responses of 4 and 5 were merged into another category (new value = 3). Other variables were retained in their original form to preserve as much information as possible. Using Stata’s brant command for parallel line testing, all models satisfied the parallel line assumption (p-values > 0.05) (

Table 6. Regression Analysis Results of Variables Influencing Suitable Approaches.

9.5						9.6
Hierarchy	Variable	H1	H2	H3	H4	Hierarchy	Variable	H1	H2
First	9.1	1.142 *	0.953 *	0.875	1.113 *	First	9.10	1.266 *	1.270 *
	9.9	0.721	0.700	1.087 *	1.114 *		9.11	1.338 *	1.341 *
	9.11	0.945	0.959	0.464	0.442	Second	9.9		−0.008
Second	9.2		0.431	0.502
Third	Non-Public			1.822 *	1.739 *
Pseudo R2		0.2598	0.2677	0.3075	0.2977	Pseudo R2		0.2301	0.2302
LR χ2			0.88	5.38	4.28 *	LR χ2			0.00
9.7						9.8
Hierarchy	Variable	H1	H2	H3	H4	Hierarchy	Variable	H1	H2	H3	H4
First	9.10	2.107 ***	1.705 *	1.637 *	2.230 ***	First	9.4	1.849 ***	1.966 ***	1.970 ***	1.835 ***
Second	9.4		0.144	0.019			9.10	−0.581	−0.068	−0.075	−0.527
	9.9		−0.150	0.047			9.11	2.253 **	2.441 **	2.460 **	2.170 *
	9.11		0.728	0.991		Second	9.9		−0.822	−0.830
Third	Education			−2.437 *	−2.097 *	Third	Non-Public			−0.042	0.220
Pseudo R2		0.2349	0.2495	0.3115	0.2882	Pseudo R2		0.4119	0.4273	0.4273	0.4125
LR χ2			1.59	8.33	5.80 *	LR χ2			1.63	1.63	0.06

In the table, *, **, and *** denote significance at the 95%, 99%, and 99.9% confidence levels, respectively. Pseudo R² represents the model’s goodness-of-fit. LR χ² indicates the likelihood ratio test results, used to compare the model with the baseline model (Model H1) for significant differences.

).

In the model for Item 9.5, incorporating the type variable significantly improved model fit, as evidenced by a notable increase in pseudo R². The inclusion of the third-hierarchy variable (non-public) significantly enhanced the model’s predictive power, with LR χ² indicating a significant difference between Model H4 and Model H1 (LR χ² = 4.28, p < 0.05). Additionally, pseudo R² values for Model H3 and Model H4 were comparable. Based on these results, Model H4 was selected for further analysis.

The analysis revealed that “Selecting suitable resources” (Item 9.1) and “Goal setting” (Item 9.9) positively influenced the design of activities supporting cultural experiential learning, with coefficients of 1.113 and 1.114, respectively. These findings suggest that challenges in resource selection and goal setting during the initial stages of instructional design may hinder the development of effective cultural experiential learning activities. Furthermore, the non-public variable showed a significant positive effect, with a coefficient of 1.739. Compared to public kindergartens, which are strictly regulated by government departments, private kindergartens have greater flexibility and autonomy in curriculum design. This freedom enables teachers in non-public settings to more easily implement methods that support cultural experiential learning.

In the model for Item 9.6, the inclusion of second-hierarchy variables did not significantly improve pseudo R² values. Therefore, Model H1 was chosen for analysis. The results showed that “Evaluating children’s interests relative to cultural identity goals” (Item 9.10) and “Assessing cultural identity development” (Item 9.11) positively influenced strategies for stimulating interest, with coefficients of 1.266 and 1.338, respectively. These findings highlight the importance of establishing a robust evaluation framework and identifying children’s interests and developmental needs through their diverse expressions. Such evaluations enable teachers to provide targeted feedback and continuously support children’s growth in interest and experience.

In the model for Item 9.7, incorporating the education level variable significantly improved model fit, as evidenced by a notable increase in pseudo R². The inclusion of the third-hierarchy variable (education level) significantly enhanced the model’s predictive power, with LR χ² showing a significant difference between Model H4 and Model H1 (LR χ² = 5.80, p < 0.05). The results revealed that “Evaluating children’s interests relative to cultural identity goals” (Item 9.10) and education level significantly influenced methods to encourage sustained exploration, with coefficients of 2.230 and −2.097, respectively. These findings highlight the critical role of evaluating children’s interests in designing methods that foster sustained exploration. However, teachers with weaker theoretical foundations may oversimplify the requirements for encouraging such sustained exploration, underestimating the complexity of supporting children’s inquiry processes.

In the model for Item 9.8, pseudo R² values remained relatively stable across all models, and LR χ² values were not significant. Therefore, Model H1 was selected for analysis. The results indicated that “Analyzing cultural connotations” (Item 9.4) and “Assessing cultural identity development” (Item 9.11) positively influenced facilitating cultural understanding, with coefficients of 1.849 and 2.253, respectively. These findings suggest that analyzing the value of specific heritage resources and evaluating children’s cultural identity development provide a solid theoretical framework for effective method design. Additionally, these evaluations serve as normative indicators for assessing the effectiveness of cultural understanding. Linking the analysis of cultural connotations with children’s cultural identity development supports the practical implementation of teaching strategies aimed at promoting cultural understanding.

7. Conclusions

This study investigates a purposive, self-selected cohort of preschool teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward cultural heritage and its application in educational practices. It aims to uncover conceptual biases and practical challenges they face in cultural heritage education, providing theoretical foundations and practical recommendations for designing effective teacher training programs. The participating preschools, located across 11 provinces in China, involve a cohort of educators actively engaged in improving their competence in cultural heritage education. Given the non-probability, voluntary sampling, the results are not generalizable to the national population. Instead, they provide an exploratory profile of challenges and perceived needs within an information-rich segment, and offer valuable insights into the current state of preschool educators advancing this field in China.

First, our findings reveal a notable deficiency in cultural heritage literacy among early childhood educators. Most educators possess only a superficial understanding of local cultural heritage and lack emotional connection to it. Their perspectives on cultural heritage also shape how they perceive its relevance to young children’s lives. For example, educators with a classical perspective of cultural heritage tend to perceive it as distant from children’s everyday experiences. This narrow perspective limits their ability to recognize the dynamic cultural environments in which both they and the children live, reducing their ability to critically reflect on the significance of living traditions within these contexts.

Moreover, low cultural heritage literacy also affects teaching practices. Educators face challenges in analyzing the deeper meanings of cultural heritage, which affects their expectations for children’s cultural identity development. It also limits their ability to design activities that help children find meaning from cultural heritage. When educators lack a clear understanding of cultural heritage—particularly its values such as identity, meaning, and connections to the present—they are less equipped to support children in engaging with cultural experiences and exploring its significance [16].

Second, this study further explores preschool teachers’ perceptions of cultural heritage education, summarized into four key aspects:

(i) Teachers highly value resources such as “traditional festivals and solar terms” and “folk games,” while “cultural relics and monuments” are the least valued. This aligns with the findings by Zen and Wang [42] (2018) and Moreno-Vera JR et al. [15] (2020), who noted that traditional festival culture is a prevalent resource in kindergarten. Additionally, Moreno-Vera JR et al. [15] (2020) highlighted that Spanish trainee teachers place greater emphasis on immovable monumental heritage. However, an overemphasis on explicit, formal aspects of culture may narrow the scope of cultural heritage education, potentially leading children to view cultural heritage as relevant only during specific occasions or as a formal, past-oriented concept disconnected from daily life. As Dewey [43] ([1899] 2005) emphasized, “If what children do in school does not become part of their life experience, then it does not truly have educational value.” To address this, teachers should incorporate multiple layers of culture—including formal aspects, everyday culture, and implicit values—into cultural heritage education, leveraging children’s tangible, lived experiences to foster cultural identity development [44].

(ii) Resource Selection Challenges: Many teachers lack discernment regarding the contemporary value (60.65%) and potential negative ideologies (40.98%) within specific cultural heritage items. Huo et al. [19] (2022) similarly found that early childhood educators often exhibit subjectivity and lack rational standards when selecting cultural heritage education content. Moreover, the absence of clear guidelines in policy documents regarding resource selection standards exacerbates these difficulties, leaving teachers without a framework to follow.

(iii) Despite cultural identity being a fundamental goal of cultural heritage education, nearly half of the teachers prioritize knowledge acquisition and hands-on exercise over nurturing cultural identity. Most teachers have low expectations for cultural identity formation in young children and exhibit contradictory expectations. For example, some teachers argue that young children do not need to understand the deeper meanings of cultural heritage, they simultaneously set meaning exploration as a core goal. Similarly, while others agree that cultural heritage education should go beyond knowledge acquisition, they still focus primarily on information delivery. Zheng et al. [45] (2021) observed similar misconceptions, where teachers assume that simply exposing children to cultural heritage objects or activities suffices for fostering cultural identity. Within the broader modern educational system, the significance of cultural heritage education and the appropriate expectations for cultural identity enlightenment during early childhood remain largely unexplored by most teachers.

(iv) This study extends previous research [1,19] by revealing that more than half of the teachers report challenges in “goal setting and evaluation” within cultural heritage education. key challenges identified by teachers include “assessing children’s cultural identity development” and “evaluating children’s interests relative to goals”. Moreover, these challenges are interconnected, creating a complex web of issues that further complicates the implementation of effective cultural heritage education.

Implications for Policy and Teacher Training

To address deficiencies in cultural heritage literacy and misconceptions in educational practices, this study suggests two key areas for improvement: policy recommendations and teacher training.

Policy Recommendations: Although existing policy documents mention cultural heritage education, they lack clear guidance on essential aspects such as goal setting, content selection, implementation, and evaluation. Future policies should focus on the following areas: (i) Establish progressive indicators for cultural heritage education goals in early childhood. These indicators can help teachers set clear objectives and conduct process evaluations effectively. (ii) Clearly define the scope and boundaries of cultural heritage concepts and develop selection criteria for resources suitable for early childhood education. (iii) Provide principles and operational suggestions for curriculum planning and implementation, along with examples of effective practices developed by educators. (iv) Collect and display exemplary cultural heritage education cases on official platforms to facilitate exchange and learning.

Teacher Training: it is recommended to focus on the following core topics, directly informed by research findings:

• Enhancing Cultural Heritage Literacy: for the cultivation of pre-service teachers’ cultural heritage literacy, current scholarship emphasizes not only cognitive understanding (knowledge, conceptual classification) but also affective/attitudinal engagement and the formation of identity [46,47]. This perspective helps interpret the limited emotional engagement we observed, which may stem from upstream gaps in pre-service preparation. Beyond traditional activities (site visits, folk artist interviews, local practice participation), emerging exploratory methods employ digital information networks [48] and online intercultural dialogue (e.g., MOOCs) [49] to promote comparative reflection and co-construction of heritage meanings.
• Clarifying Educational Goals: helping teachers clarify and align educational goals is critical for effective implementation of cultural heritage education. Workshops should include: (i) The Importance of Cultural Heritage Education. Discussions on its role in preparing children for a culturally diverse and globalized future. (ii) Understanding Cultural Identity. Sessions that explore the gradual development of children’s emotional connection to cultural heritage and the formation of cultural identity. (iii) Evaluating Engagement. Introduce practical techniques for observing and assessing children’s interest, emotional responses and sustained exploration of heritage items.
• Activity Organization and Interaction: equip teachers with principles and methods for organizing activities and interacting with children. Specific strategies include: (i) Encouraging Exploration. Emphasize the importance of listening to children’s questions and providing opportunities for deep engagement, such as through hands-on activities and sensory experiences. (ii) Promoting Constructive Dialogue. Train teachers to facilitate conversations that allow children to express their own interpretations of heritage, compare heritage elements with their own experiences, and connect them to contemporary contexts. (iii) Avoiding Predefined Interpretations. Encourage children to develop their own understanding of heritage, rather than imposing adult perspectives.

By focusing on these areas, teacher training can provide teachers with the theoretical knowledge, practical skills, and emotional engagement necessary to effectively integrate cultural heritage education into early childhood practices. These recommendations are grounded in research findings and aim to foster children’s cultural identity, emotional connection, and active engagement with heritage.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study achieves its objectives, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The sample consists of teachers voluntarily participating in workshops, likely reflecting higher-than-average interest or experience in cultural heritage education. Therefore, the findings may not fully represent the broader population of preschool educators, particularly those with less interest or experience in cultural heritage education.

Future research directions may include the following areas:

• Investigate teachers’ confidence in teaching cultural heritage, which may reveal their preparedness for training. Additionally, explore their expectations for training topics to design more targeted and effective training programs.
• Examine the general and unique requirements of cultural heritage education for teachers’ educational philosophies and teaching abilities at different educational stages. This could provide theoretical support and practical guidance for stage-specific cultural heritage education.
• Employ randomized or stratified sampling methods to expand the geographical and demographic scope of participants, considering factors such as regional cultural characteristics, socioeconomic status, educational resources and community involvement.

Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insights into critical issues in cultural heritage education practices, offering a foundation for designing targeted teacher training programs and advancing this field in early childhood education.