Our presentation and seminar aims at contributing to theunderstanding of different stakeholders' views and expectationson the content of higher education teacher training (HETT).University teachers are typically carefully trained in doingresearch, however, frequently they lack formal pedagogicaltraining (Gosling, 2009; Holt, Palmer, & Challis, 2011; SwedishNational Union of Students (SFS), 2015). One way to addressthe lack of pedagogical experience is to arrange teachertraining courses. As the quality of higher education becomesthe focus of attention in the Western world and the demandon teaching and learning increase, so does the requirement ofuniversity teachers to take part in teacher training (Gibbs, 2013;Havnes & Stensaker, 2006). As universities can be describedas "loosely coupled systems" (Weick, 1976) where differentparts are expected to have diverging goals and course planningrequire the accommodation of many different perspective,several actors are likely to have different opinions about thecontent of higher education development courses. Accordingly,our research seeks to investigate how different stakeholdersview and value the content of HETT. This research field remainsunder-explored and insufficiently problematized.The aim of our seminar is to problematize and discuss fourstakeholders' views of course content in higher educationteacher training in Sweden, namely: 1) students, 2) universityteachers, 3) university management and 4) government. Wewill present patterns, similarities and differences, concerningcourse content in HETT, among the four different stakeholders.Methodologically, our investigation is based on interviewsand document analysis to explore different viewpoints on thecontent in HETT among students, university teachers, centraluniversity managers in four Swedish new universities and the government. Theoretically the analysis will be guided by Ellström's (2006) and Dreyfus' (1986) approaches to the relationbetween theory and practice.Preliminary results indicate diverging views between differentstakeholder groups where teachers and university management, expect HETT to be primarily practically oriented andrelate to constructive alignment (Biggs, 2005). However, inthe national recommendations on outcomes for HETT, theemphasis is on theoretical rather than practical applicability(SUHF, 2017).In the seminar, we wish to discuss the following suggestionsfor HETT:– Introduce and emphasize practical recommendations aslearning outcomes for teaching qualifications required foremployment as academic teacher,– Include concrete practical teachings tips in physical anddigital learning environments,– Present and problematize the concept of constructivealignment including course improvements and teachingquality regarding: learning outcomes, concrete teachingmethods and a variation of examination forms,– Compile HETT-evaluations not only on a regular and localuniversity basis, but also nationally and clarify how progressand improved quality is promoted in HETT-courses based onprevious local and national evaluations,– Encourage and enable for teams of teachers to participatein the same HETT,– Closely link the HETT content to the documentation ofquality work at the university.