Being an ECEC Teacher Educator—With Love as a Dare

Abstract

This article explores the role of the lecturer as a teacher educator in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), drawing on the experiences of former ECEC students. Student perspectives offer valuable insights, especially during times of change and development in the education sector. The study is based on a qualitative, open-ended survey conducted with former ECEC students. Thematic analysis of the data reveals that students greatly value the lecturer’s approach to teaching and highlights the significance of lecturers having personal experience from working in kindergartens. The findings are discussed in light of perspectives on care and love, core values traditionally associated with Norwegian ECEC in relation to children, but perhaps less emphasized in the context of higher education and teacher training. A limitation of the study is the small sample size of 20 participants; however, the aim is not to produce generalizable results, but to offer thoughtful reflections on former students’ experiences and perceptions of the lecturer’s role in ECEC teacher education.

1. Introduction

The current Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) teacher education program was introduced in 2013, with the aim of creating a modernized and academically rigorous curriculum (Borgund, 2023). Despite being in place for over a decade, there has been relatively little research on how the program is implemented, particularly from the perspective of students’ experiences and perceptions (Havnes, 2021). All higher education institutions in Norway offering ECEC teacher education conduct internal evaluations of their courses, in addition to participating in the national Study Barometer (NOKUT, n.d.), which is administered during students’ second year. Hatlem and Belseth (2017) explored the role of students during field placement and examined whether the revised ECEC teacher education has become more professionally oriented since the 2013 reform. They argue that the program must undergo continuous development and evaluation, not only students need to evolve, but so must the education program itself, including its field placement component. As Borgund (2023) states, students’ own experiences and perceptions are important for the evaluation and assessment of higher education, highlighting the value of their voices in quality assurance processes. Gaining insight into students’ perceptions of lecturers and course content is therefore essential when reflecting on one’s own role as an ECEC teacher educator. Oseth-Andersen (2022, p. 136), who has researched student evaluation in ECEC teacher education, describes how such evaluations were perceived “as an opportunity to improve and develop teaching and the study program by creating a ‘dialogue’ between students and teachers about the form and content of the teaching.” However, this is not always an easy task, especially in large lecture halls with many students.

As a lecturer, there is a continuous desire to improve one’s role as both communicator and educator. While previous research has explored classroom management and various teaching styles, particularly within primary school and, to some extent, in higher education, this article aims to expand the discourse by introducing the concepts of love and care into academic teaching more broadly, and into ECEC teacher education specifically. The article therefore seeks to explore the following research question:

How do former ECEC students perceive pedagogy lectures in which the teacher educator embraces love as a core pedagogical principle?

2. Background and Prior Research

In the National Guidelines for ECEC Teacher Education (Ministry of Education, 2018), the concept of love is not mentioned even once. Care, on the other hand, is mentioned nine times, but only in relation to what students are expected to focus on within specific subjects or courses, or what they should learn as part of the stated learning outcomes.

In the National Framework Plan for Kindergartens (Ministry of Education, 2017), the concept of charity/love for fellow human beings is mentioned four times, while care appears 21 times, in various forms. However, neither of these foundational documents refers to love as an independent or clearly defined topic. In Section 3, titled Objectives and Content, there is a specific section called The kindergarten shall meet children’s need for care. It is described as follows:

Care is a prerequisite for children’s confidence and well-being and for developing empathy and compassion. Kindergartens shall enable the children to develop trust in themselves and others. All kindergarten children should feel that they are being seen, heard and respected and that they receive the help and support they need. Kindergartens shall actively encourage caring relationships between children and staff and between the children themselves in order to foster well-being, happiness and achievement. Staff shall work to create an environment that not only renders the children recipients of care but which also values the children’s own acts of caring.

(Ministry of Education, 2017, p. 19, my emphasis)

To achieve this, the Framework Plan states that staff must meet all children with openness, warmth and interest and show consideration for every child (Ministry of Education, 2017, p. 20).

What happens if we replace children with students, kindergartens with ECEC teacher education, and kindergarten staff with ECEC teacher educators? The National Guidelines for the ECEC Teacher Education Program make no mention of either care or love in relation to working with students. Instead, the guidelines state that “the academic environment associated with the program must have updated and relevant knowledge from the field of practice” (Ministry of Education, 2018, p. 4). However, what is considered “relevant” knowledge remains open to interpretation. Borgund (2022) has examined how the Framework Plan and the National Guidelines for ECEC teacher education are understood and implemented. She suggests that higher education institutions appear to share a common professional culture that contributes to a certain degree of uniformity in some areas of the program. Although the ECEC teacher education program currently consists of compulsory courses organized into so-called ‘knowledge area’, institutions retain considerable autonomy in determining the specific content of these courses, provided they align with the national learning outcome descriptions (Ministry of Education, 2018). For instance, many institutions have expanded the compulsory ‘knowledge area’ Child Development, Play and Learning (CDPL) by increasing its ECTS credits. While at some institutions this area is treated as a distinct academic subject, others have chosen to eliminate pedagogy as a standalone course and instead integrate it into field practice, placing greater emphasis on professionalism.

One of the strengths of the ECEC teacher education program is its interdisciplinary approach across most of the compulsory ‘knowledge areas’. However, the integration of various disciplines into these areas has also generated academic tensions within them (Havnes, 2021). At the same time, there is a paradox: the subject of pedagogy is now perceived to have less prominence in the current program than it did in the previous version, where it was taught as a separate subject each year alongside the other disciplines. This shift raises important questions about the current role of pedagogy teacher educators, many of whom have extensive practical experience from working in kindergartens and whether they continue to occupy a central position within ECEC teacher education (Johansson, 2020). It also invites reflection on whether such practical experience influences how students are perceived and met, particularly in terms of the care and love that many pedagogy educators bring with them from years of hands-on pedagogical work with children in kindergartens.

However, Section 3 of the National Guidelines for ECEC Teacher Education emphasizes that “pedagogy shall be a central and unifying subject that is included in all knowledge areas and have a special responsibility for the progression and professional orientation of the education” (Ministry of Education, 2018, p. 6). Furthermore, the guidelines state that if pedagogy is to serve as a linking subject throughout the program, higher education institutions must ensure that the discipline is clearly defined and given sufficient weight in each academic year. It also specifies that “the pedagogy subject has an overall responsibility for the student’s professional development and must be seen in the context of progression in the practical studies” (p. 6). Despite this, when the Norwegian ECEC teacher education program was scheduled for revision in 2022, where one proposal included removing the ‘knowledge area’ Child Development, Play and Learning (CDPL) altogether, it sparked concern among pedagogy educators. In response, several ECEC teacher educators in pedagogy organized a national dialog meeting, gathering colleagues from higher education institutions across the country. A collective appeal was made on behalf of the pedagogy community, urging that the subject of pedagogy be credited appropriately and emphasized as a unifying professional discipline within the education program.

At the same time, a feature article titled Pedagogy must be strengthened, not weakened was published in Barnehagefolk. In the article, the authors raise critical questions—among them, who is better positioned to speak about the professional subject of pedagogy in ECEC teacher education than those who themselves teach and conduct research in the field (Greve et al., 2022). The authors argue that although pedagogy is formally defined as a central and unifying subject in the ECEC teacher education program, there is little doubt that its position has, in practice, been weakened. This claim is supported by Johansson (2020), who likewise states that pedagogy has lost ground in the new ECEC teacher education structure, while other subjects have gained stronger footholds. Johansson further emphasizes that the core of ECEC teacher education should not only be emphasized in the bachelor’s program, but also in master’s programs and in research and knowledge production related to ECEC. As he notes, “The doctoral level and fundings of ECEC research have improved, but there are still far too few doctoral students and research projects in relation to ECEC’s major activities” (Johansson, 2020, p. 162). This reinforces the argument that ECEC teacher educators should be firmly rooted in early childhood pedagogy, ideally with personal experience from working in kindergartens. Such a background is crucial, not only for professional credibility, but also for ensuring that pedagogical principles such as care and love are meaningfully integrated into teaching practices in higher education.

3. Theoretical Perspectives

The theoretical perspectives in this study draw on the concepts of care and love within the context of early childhood education, with an aim to establish a meaningful link to the higher education context. Alongside pedagogy, ethics will also serve as a central framework, as these concepts are closely interconnected (Hennum & Østrem, 2016). According to Aslanian (2016b), the ethics of love concerns how we perceive and relate to others, and centers on the encounters between people and the sense of responsibility we feel towards one another. She refers to the “golden rule”: to treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves and suggests that this form of basic empathetic awareness can serve as an entry point into understanding the ethical dimension of love (Aslanian, 2016b). Aslanian (2016a, 2016b, 2018) is one of the leading scholars in Norway to have explored the concept of love in the field of ECEC. She links love directly to professional practice, emphasizing that while love plays a significant role in early childhood pedagogy, it remains largely unspoken, both in the field and in teacher education programs (Aslanian, 2016a). Professional love is a concept developed by Jools Page to describe the warm, affectionate, and emotionally responsive relationships that early years practitioners form with the children in their care. Page (2011) argues that such love is essential for young children’s emotional well-being and development, especially in daycare settings where secure attachments are needed. This form of love is distinct from parental love but is still deeply nurturing, professional, and ethically grounded.

Nel Noddings is often credited with initiating academic discussions on the relationship between care and pedagogy (Arnesen, 2017; Aslanian, 2016a, 2016b; Tholin, 2023). She distinguishes between personal care and ethical care (Noddings, 2010, 2013). This distinction implies that even when feelings of care do not arise naturally, educators still have a professional and ethical obligation to act with care and compassion (Aslanian, 2016b). Traces of Noddings’ perspective can be found in an earlier edition of the National Framework Plan for Kindergartens, where care was described as a professional ethical responsibility for staff (Ministry of Education, 2011). Although care has been a central theme in all four versions of the Norwegian kindergarten framework plan and was a key focus in the previous Norwegian ECEC teacher education program, it is paradoxical that the concept of care was largely omitted when the new ECEC teacher education program was introduced in 2013 (Tholin, 2014; Aslanian, 2018). Simultaneously, concerns were raised about care being overshadowed by an increasing emphasis on learning in kindergartens, resulting in care becoming somewhat invisible in practice and discourse (Tholin, 2018). This development can also be observed in ECEC teacher education. In this regard, it is particularly noteworthy that in the recent anthology about researching one’s own teaching practice in ECEC teacher education (Moxnes et al., 2022), neither care nor love is mentioned in any of the 16 chapters. However, this is perhaps not surprising. As both Tholin (2023) and Aslanian (2016a, 2016b, 2018) argue, while love is an undeniably powerful human force, it has received limited attention within pedagogy—especially in the context of higher education. Tholin further points out that love is a loaded and powerful concept, but one that can carry the authenticity and uniqueness we seek in human relationships, particularly in early childhood settings (Tholin, 2023). This study highlights how love can serve as a motivating force in the work of kindergarten teachers and how it may function as an ideal in their professional practice. Such perspectives, espoused by Page, Tholin, and Aslanian, can also be extended to the context of ECEC teacher educators and their relationships with ECEC students.

Dahle et al. (2016) highlight the concept of well-being for the youngest children in kindergarten, where loving is seen as central and directly linked to quality of life. They describe how loving relates to the individual’s need for attachment and close relationships. Within the context of this study, where love is explored in a teaching environment, it is particularly relevant to note their point that love is important for all human beings “to be able to experience that they are important and significant at least to someone and in some context” (Dahle et al., 2016, p. 54). In their analysis, loving is described as presence. A related concept is what Aslanian (2016a) refers to as loving pedagogy. She discusses this in relation to attachment theories and their influence on early childhood education, arguing that love is a necessary foundation for pedagogical practice. Arnesen (2017) also addresses love in what she calls pedagogical presence, a concept that focuses on the quality of interactions between people. She asserts that love as a pedagogical theme is not new and that it can be understood as being a present and respectful teacher, where “the ability to be present is the essence of love” (Arnesen, 2017, p. 277). Furthermore, Arnesen emphasizes that love is about empathy and commitment, and links it to dialog as a foundation for reciprocity, which is essential for offering others recognition, affirmation, and respect (Arnesen, 2017). Taken together, these perspectives show that care and love are deeply interconnected, although they may be defined and expressed in different ways within the context of early childhood education and care (ECEC).

At the beginning of this section, it was established that ethics are central to pedagogy. To treat people as ends in themselves—with the idea that all individuals possess an inherent and unconditional worth simply by virtue of their existence—means that everyone has the right to be met with basic respect (Hennum & Østrem, 2016). A key concept here is quality, which, according to Hennum and Østrem, forms an essential foundation for living a meaningful life together. At the same time, they acknowledge that in any educational setting, asymmetrical relationships are unavoidable, some individuals naturally have more expertise or authority than others. In the teaching context, this asymmetry is evident in the relationship between the ECEC teacher educator and the ECEC student. Here, the educator holds a position of power over the student. This power imbalance is also highlighted by Wilhelmsen et al. (2022), who warn against overlooking student evaluations and emphasize how such disregard may undermine student well-being—both in educational settings and in research contexts. Still, if we follow Hennum and Østrem’s ethical perspective and apply it to ECEC teacher education, kindergartens can be replaced with higher education institutions as the arena for relational pedagogy. The ideal, then, is one of equality despite asymmetry, where teacher and student meet in mutual respect, engage in dialog, and learn from one another. The view of children as subjects with agency is deeply rooted in the Norwegian Kindergarten Act (Hennum & Østrem, 2016; Tholin, 2023). But how can we get students to ‘practice what we preach’? When the National Framework Plan for Kindergartens states that staff must meet children with openness, warmth, and interest, and show consideration for each individual child, one suggestion is that ECEC teacher educators should do the same with their students. In other words, ECEC lecturers should meet each student with openness, warmth, and genuine interest in their teaching practice, thus viewing students as subjects, not just recipients of knowledge. This idea can be linked to Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, one of the pioneers of kindergarten and an influence on Fröbel (Johansson, 2020). Pestalozzi believed that love, not teaching, should be at the heart of education (Aslanian, 2016a, 2016b). Although his work was aimed at primary school education, the same principle may well apply to higher education, particularly in professional programs such as ECEC, which demand core pedagogical competencies like warmth, closeness, and relational sensitivity. This can be explored further by researching former ECEC students’ perspectives.

4. Method

The method employed in this study is a qualitative, open-ended survey. The survey consisted of open-ended questions designed to encourage reflection, allowing participants to respond freely in text boxes under each question. No questions involved grading or multiple-choice options; instead, participants were invited to provide either brief or extensive answers, depending on their preference. In instances where a yes-or-no response was anticipated, follow-up prompts such as “If so, in what way?” were included to facilitate elaboration and deeper reflection.

In designing the survey, particular attention was given to ensuring that the questions would elicit data relevant to the research question. This approach aligns with A. Johannessen et al. (2021), who describe survey construction as “to a large extent an operationalization process by formulating as specific questions as possible” (p. 292). However, in this study, the aim was not to narrow the participants’ responses through specificity, but rather to keep the questions open-ended and interpretative, allowing participants to reflect on their own terms. This is consistent with A. Johannessen et al.’s (2021) argument that open-ended questions enable participants to articulate their experiences in their own words, thereby generating rich, qualitative data that may otherwise be lost in more structured formats.

Nevertheless, a well-documented challenge in open-ended surveys is that formulating truly open and non-leading questions can be difficult, and the quality of the data may be affected if participants are not comfortable expressing themselves in writing (A. Johannessen et al., 2021). This is acknowledged as a potential limitation of the study. However, this concern is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the participants—former ECEC students—have had prior experience with similar surveys conducted internally for course evaluation purposes. In addition, they possess substantial experience in academic writing, through their coursework, examination assignments, and bachelor’s theses. This background likely enhanced their ability to provide thoughtful and well-developed responses.

Furthermore, the choice of an open-ended survey as the primary data collection method is also a pragmatic one, as it enables participation from individuals who may have limited time or geographical access for interviews, while still offering valuable insight. Although open-ended surveys do not allow for the same depth or spontaneity as in-depth interviews, they provide a degree of reflection that may be less accessible in oral formats. Participants can take the time to formulate their thoughts carefully, which may lead to more considered and deliberate expressions of their experiences.

In line with qualitative principles, this study does not aim for statistical generalization but rather seeks to explore patterns of meaning and perception as they emerge through participants’ own narratives. The goal is not to represent all former ECEC students, but to gain insight into how pedagogical love and professional presence are experienced and interpreted by a group of individuals with firsthand knowledge of ECEC teacher education.

4.1. Participants

As the target group consisted of former ECEC students, a strategic random sampling method was employed (Dalland, 2020). The strategy was to identify individuals who had completed the ECEC teacher education program at Østfold University within the past ten years (2013–2023), ensuring a relevant and experience-based foundation for reflecting on the research question. From this group, sixty individuals were randomly selected and invited via email to participate in the study through an anonymous, electronic survey. Participation was entirely voluntary, and participants could choose whether or not to complete the survey without any consequences. The invitation clearly stated the purpose of the study, the estimated time required, and ethical considerations. The group of sixty individuals included both women and men and represented a range of age groups and graduation years, contributing to variation in the data. The resulting sample of respondents comprised twenty individuals who completed and submitted the survey. While the relatively small number of respondents may be seen as a limitation in terms of breadth, it nonetheless provides valuable insight into the lived experiences and perspectives of former ECEC students.

This sampling approach balances strategic relevance—by targeting individuals with direct experience of ECEC teacher education—and randomization, which helps reduce selection bias and allows for a broader range of voices. However, as with all qualitative studies, the findings are not generalized to all former ECEC students but are intended to provide in-depth insight into how this particular group perceived pedagogy lectures where love and care were embraced as pedagogical principles.

4.2. Ethical Considerations

The electronic survey was distributed to participants as a link via the digital platform Nettskjema, which is approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt) for the secure collection of research data. Nettskjema ensures full digital anonymity, as no identifying metadata (such as IP addresses or email information) is stored alongside responses.

Since the survey did not collect any personal or sensitive data—such as name, age, gender, or contact information, the project did not require formal notification or ethical clearance from Sikt. Nevertheless, as a researcher, remaining attentive to the ethical obligations associated with conducting research involving human participants is crucial. This includes safeguarding voluntary participation and protecting anonymity and confidentiality throughout the research process.

To further protect participant anonymity, demographic questions such as age or gender were intentionally omitted. In presenting the data, direct quotations from participants are cited simply as statements from “one of the participants,” without numbering or attributing specific identifiers. Given the relatively small sample size (N = 20), such measures help prevent any risk of indirect identification. Individual coding or grouping was therefore deemed unnecessary.

These ethical considerations are consistent with principles outlined in national research ethics guidelines and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), emphasizing transparency, minimal data collection, and the right to privacy. The approach reflects a commitment to treating participants with respect and dignity, and to ensuring that their contributions are used responsibly and securely in the research process.

4.3. Data Analysis

A thematic analysis, inspired by Braun and Clarke (2006) and L. E. F. Johannessen et al. (2018), was employed to process the participants’ responses. Thematic analysis involves several stages, including coding and categorizing the data. According to Braun and Clarke, there is no single prescribed method for conducting such an analysis. Their original model outlines six stages, while L. E. F. Johannessen et al. (2018) offer a simplified version condensing these into four stages, combining three of the original stages into one. In this study, the analysis was primarily conducted following the four-stage model. From this process, two core themes emerged: the importance of ECEC teacher educators’ own experiences from kindergarten, and the significance of the warmth displayed by ECEC teacher educators with practical kindergarten experience. These themes will be elaborated below.

5. Findings

The first core finding highlights the importance of ECEC teacher educators’ own experience working in kindergartens. In the survey, participants were asked to reflect on how important they felt such experience was for their own learning when the educator had prior kindergarten experience.

5.1. The Importance of the ECEC Teacher Educators’ Own Experiences from Kindergarten

After reviewing and analyzing the responses, it became clear that all 20 participants emphasized the importance of this experience. One participant stated that it is “absolutely crucial to have experiences from kindergarten to make the lectures more realistic.” Another participant explained it as follows:

I believe this is very important. When someone “only” has higher education without any practical experience working in a kindergarten, it becomes apparent when the subjects or themes are being taught. Having a theoretical background is valuable, but there is a clear difference between theory and practice. While there will always be some gap between the two, in my experience, this gap can be significantly reduced when lecturers have worked in various roles within kindergartens.

Here, the participant emphasizes that a background in higher education alone is not sufficient and underscores the value of having practical experience in the field one is teaching about. The participant also highlights how the gap between theory and practice is perceived to be reduced when ECEC teacher educators have experience in various roles within kindergartens. This provides an interesting and insightful perspective.

Another participant highlights how the ECEC teacher educators with practical experience from kindergarten can be perceived as more genuine:

It is very important to have personal experience from the field in order to truly understand the work that takes place in practice—and to be able to teach about it. Only then do I believe you truly know what you are talking about.

Here, the participant emphasizes that being genuine is essential, as it is only through authentic experience that one can truly understand what they are teaching. This perspective aligns with the response of another participant, who conveys a similar message—though with a primary focus on the ECEC teacher educator’s level of commitment:

Since we’re trained as kindergarten teachers, I find it far more engaging to learn from lecturers with firsthand experience in kindergartens, rather than from those with purely administrative or office-based backgrounds. Such experience makes the content feel more realistic and facilitates a stronger connection between theory and practice.

As mentioned by the participant in the first quote, this participant also describes how it becomes easier to connect theory and practice. The same participant uses the term realistic, which can be linked to the response of another participant:

This is crucial, as it lends authenticity, more genuine and a practical focus to the teaching. The lecturer is able to share and expand upon firsthand experiences from the field.

Here, too, the concept of genuineness is emphasized. It appears important to the participant that ECEC teacher educators possess firsthand experience from the field and are able to share this with students in the teaching context. Another participant even expressed the wish that having kindergarten experience should be a requirement for ECEC teacher educators. The participant describes it as follows:

I believe it should be a requirement. I often felt that lecturers who were not closely connected to the profession were unable to effectively convey the pedagogical aspects, which meant I didn’t get much out of the lectures.

Here, the participant highlights that pedagogical aspects are conveyed more effectively when the ECEC teacher educator has practical experience from kindergarten. At the same time, the participant feels they would not have gained as much from the lecture if the educator lacked a close connection to the profession.

Another participant highlights trust as a core value when describing the importance of having practical experience from kindergarten, calling it “absolutely essential! Because students have more confidence in the lecturer, who is perceived as more relevant and not just academically trained.” Another participant notes that ECEC teacher educators with practical kindergarten experience are taken more seriously by students compared to those without it:

I believe it makes a significant difference for students. I get the impression that students take lecturers more seriously when they share their own practical experience from the field.

In summary, according to the participants, ECEC teacher educators’ own experience in kindergarten helps to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Educators with practical experience are perceived as more genuine, engaging, and practice-oriented. At the same time, students tend to have greater confidence and trust in these educators, and they take them more seriously.

5.2. The Significance of the Warmth Displayed by ECEC Teacher Educators with Practical Kindergarten Experience

Another key point that emerged from the analysis was the importance of the warmth shown by ECEC teacher educators with practical experience from kindergarten. One participant expressed it this way:

By sharing their own stories from the field and showing their commitment to various theories and theorists, they demonstrate a genuine love for the subject of pedagogy. I also felt that the lecturer acknowledged and valued our reflections as students.

Here, the participant describes how an ECEC teacher educator with practical kindergarten experience not only demonstrates love for the subject but also acknowledges and values the students’ own reflections. Another participant explains it in a different way:

We quickly noticed whether the lecturer had experience from the field or not—I felt that those with practical experience came across as warmer. The lecturers who were more passionate about their subject also appeared warmer and more engaged in the classroom discussions.

This statement also underscores the importance of warmth, particularly how those who are passionate about their subject tend to be perceived as warmer and more engaged in the teaching process. Similar reflections appear in another participant’s response: “I experienced that the lecturers who had worked in kindergartens were the most genuine and warm. They could always relate to things we had experienced.” Once again, the concept of genuineness is emphasized, as highlighted in the previous finding. Another point raised by several participants is the value of ECEC teacher educators who take time to connect with students personally, for example, by learning their names. One participant described it like this:

Lecturers who learn our names and take a little extra time to get to know us—you quickly notice which teachers are genuine and warm. They’re often the ones who share their own experiences in class and maintain a more practice-oriented approach to teaching.

In this response, the participant describes how lecturers who take the time to learn students’ names and get to know them personally are often the same ones who have practical experience from kindergarten. These lecturers are therefore perceived as offering more practice-oriented teaching. Once again, the concept of genuineness is mentioned, echoing earlier statements. Another participant shared a similar experience: “They knew our names after a short amount of time. This made it special, and you felt seen, also when we met them outside of class, in the hallway, cafeteria, or library.” Here, the participant emphasizes the importance of feeling seen, while also valuing the informal interactions with ECEC teacher educators outside of scheduled lectures. A third participant also highlighted the importance of being acknowledged: “I definitely experienced that some lecturers saw us students in a special way, remembered our names, and seemed sincerely interested in the experiences we shared in class.” This idea of sincerity can also be linked to the concept of genuineness, as another participant noted: “They saw each individual student and were genuinely interested in discussing the experiences you brought to the lecture.”

In summary, the participants emphasized that having a passion for the subject—or demonstrating a genuine love for it—is essential for ECEC teacher educators with practical experience from kindergarten. These educators are often the same ones who learn the students’ names, draw on their own experiences, and adopt a practice-oriented approach to teaching. At the same time, they are perceived as seeing each individual student and valuing the students’ own experiences and reflections during teaching. While the majority of participants described those with kindergarten experience as the warmest educators, two participants stood out with slightly different perspectives. One participant shared that they experienced warmth from lecturers across all subjects, regardless of background, and felt that these lecturers were passionate about their respective fields. Another participant offered a more nuanced view:

In their own way, the lecturers contributed different perspectives, which I think is appropriate—because as human beings, we are not the same, and we teach and practice education in different ways and with different methods. In that sense, I experienced a valuable range of contributions and diversity throughout my kindergarten teacher education—and I think that is very important!

This is an interesting perspective, as it touches on the core of the ‘knowledge areas’ in the ECEC teacher education program and highlights the value of their interdisciplinary nature, contributing to a diversity of approaches and understandings.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on the experiences of most participants, it appears that ECEC teacher educators with practical experience from kindergarten occupy a unique and valued position. The participants emphasize key concepts such as warmth, closeness, and genuineness, and highlight the importance of learning students’ names and making them feel seen and heard. Some even mention love—a concept that aligns with what Aslanian (2016a) describes as loving pedagogy. The way students describe their lecturers may suggest that love is not only fundamental to pedagogical work with children, but also essential in teaching students in higher education.

In this context, Arnesen’s (2017) concept of pedagogical presence may be particularly relevant. She frames love as part of being present, where the quality of the interpersonal encounter is central. When participants describe ECEC teacher educators with kindergarten experience as those who learn students’ names, spend time with them outside of class, and show genuine care, this reflects a form of pedagogical presence where love is expressed through attentiveness and respect.

This understanding also resonates with Page’s (2011) concept of professional love, which emphasizes the importance of forming warm, emotionally attuned, and ethically responsible relationships within professional educational contexts. While Page primarily focuses on early childhood educators’ relationships with children, her reflections on love as both professional and relational can be extended to higher education. The emotional responsibility and relational sensitivity she describes are clearly reflected in how students perceive educators who connect theory with practice, share personal experiences, and engage with students in a sincere and respectful manner.

Furthermore, Noddings’ (2010, 2013) ethics of care provides a foundational philosophical lens for understanding this dynamic. Noddings argues that caring relationships are central to education and that the moral responsibility of the teacher is to respond to the needs of the cared-for, in this case, the student. She emphasizes receptive attention as a core aspect of care: being fully present and responsive to the other. This aligns closely with the participants’ descriptions of educators who listen, recognize students’ experiences, and meet them as whole human beings. Noddings (2010, 2013) contends that such caring relationships are not peripheral but essential to meaningful and transformative education.

The sense of being seen, valued, and taken seriously, expressed by many participants can also be understood through Noddings’ insistence that education must be built on relational trust and mutual respect. When ECEC teacher educators embody this kind of relational ethic, they not only model best practice for work with children but also enact a pedagogical stance that deeply affirms the student’s subjectivity.

If ECEC teacher educators are to prepare future kindergarten teachers to meet all children with openness, warmth, and interest, to treat each child as a subject, as emphasized in the Norwegian National Framework Plan, then they must also meet their students in higher education with the same ethical commitment. As previously mentioned, and following Pestalozzi (in Aslanian, 2016a, 2016b), it is love, not teaching, that lies at the heart of education.

The research question this article explored is how former ECEC students perceive pedagogy lectures where the teacher educator embraces love as a core pedagogical principle. Although the study has certain limitations—such as the small sample size of 20 participants and the lack of follow-up through, for example, in-depth interviews—the findings nonetheless indicate that ECEC teacher educators’ practical experience from the kindergarten field plays a vital role. This is particularly evident through the participants’ emphasis on closeness, warmth, and relational engagement.

As Johansson (2020, p. 161) argues, “teachers in pedagogy in the ECEC teacher education who have experience from kindergarten must regain their central role in the work of developing knowledge about pedagogical problems in practice and in the use of the framework plan and theory.” The findings in this study suggest that this perspective resonates with the students themselves, perhaps even more strongly than anticipated, although achieving this shift in practice may still require time and structural change.

To move in this direction, it is essential that ECEC teacher educators dare to show both love and care, for both the field of early childhood education and for their students in higher education. Embracing love as a core pedagogical principle demands more than emotional warmth; it requires a conscious and ethical commitment. As Aslanian (2016a) points out, love as a professional practice is not based on arbitrary feelings, but on a personal commitment to an impersonal goal, rooted in values. Practicing love professionally therefore involves recognizing both one’s humanity and one’s professional responsibility (Aslanian, 2016a, p. 198).

Perhaps this is precisely where the core of ECEC teacher education lies: in educators who are rooted in the kindergarten field and who bring with them both pedagogical competence and genuine, value-based care for their students. In this way, love becomes not only an emotional stance but a professional ethic, one that guides both the content and the relational quality of teacher education.

Future research could explore how teacher educators themselves understand and practice concepts such as professional love, warmth, and pedagogical presence, and how these are negotiated within institutional and academic constraints. Finally, further research could also investigate how pedagogical love and care are integrated or excluded in policy documents, curricula, and institutional cultures within higher education, to better understand the structural enablers and barriers of such an important topic in higher education.