• María C. CañadasEmail author
  • Pedro Gómez
  • Luis Rico


Spain was 1 of the 17 countries that participated in the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement’s Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M 2008). In this paper, we explore and describe the structure of Spanish primary mathematics teacher education programs. We analyzed the documents collected from the 48 sampled Spanish institutions that participated in TEDS-M. Our approach to the syllabus analysis focused on the established content dimension of curriculum in educators’ syllabi. These contents are structured into 4 knowledge domains—school mathematics, advanced mathematics, general pedagogy, and mathematics pedagogy—and categorized into subjects and topics. The results show that Spanish teacher education programs are diverse across institutions, but follow a basic structure that emphasizes the teaching of general pedagogy subjects.

Key words

education programs primary mathematics teacher Spain syllabus analysis teacher training TEDS-M 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blömeke, S. (2012). Content, professional preparation, and teaching methods: How diverse is teacher education across countries? Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 684–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blömeke, S. & Kaiser, G. (2012). Homogeneity or heterogeneity? Profiles of opportunities to learn in primary teacher education and their relationship to cultural context and outcomes. ZDM, 44(3), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., Kaiser, G. & Döhrmann, M. (2012). Family background, entry selectivity and opportunities to learn: What matters in primary teacher education? An international comparison of fifteen countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro, E. & Flores, P. (2008). Spanish report on teacher education at primary level. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education. The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Eberly, M., Newton, S. & Wiggins, R. (2001). The syllabus as a tool for student-centered learning. The Journal of General Education, 50(1), 56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilbert, R. (2006). Syllabus analysis and post-school pathways. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  9. Hrycaj, P. (2006). An analysis of online syllabi for credit-bearing library skills courses. College and Research Libraries, 67(6), 525.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, C. (2006). Best practices in syllabus writing: Contents of a learner-centered syllabus. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 20(2), 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerr, G., Patti, C. & Chien, M. (2004). Integrated marketing communication (IMC): A new discipline with an old learning approach: A syllabi analysis. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference.Google Scholar
  12. Kousha, K. & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2060–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (2006). Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación [Education organic law 2/2006 of May 3]. BOE, 106, 17158–17207.Google Scholar
  14. Ministerio Educación de y Ciencia (1991). Real Decreto 1440/1991, de 30 de agosto, por el que se establece el título universitario oficial de Maestros en sus diversas especialidades y las directrices generales propias de los planes de estudios conducentes a su obtención [Royal decree 1440/1991 of August 30, in which the university degree of primary teacher in its diverse specialities and the guidelines for the education programs are established]. BOE, 244, 33004–33008.Google Scholar
  15. Ministerio Educación, de Cultura y Deporte (2012). TEDS-M informe español. Estudio internacional sobre formación inicial en matemáticas de los maestros [Spanish report of TEDS-M about preservice primary mathematics teacher education]. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio Educación, de Cultura y Deporte.Google Scholar
  16. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O’Sullivan, C. Y., Arora, A. & Erberber, E. (2007). TIMSS 2007 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.Google Scholar
  17. Parkes, J. & Harris, M. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching, 50(2), 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rico, L. (1994). Componentes básicas para la formación del profesor de matemáticas de secundaria. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 21, 33–44.Google Scholar
  19. Rico, L. (1999). Matemáticas, universidad y formación del profesorado. Revista Internuviersitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 34, 245–262.Google Scholar
  20. Rico, L. (2004). Refleciones sobre la formación inicial del profesor de matemáticas de secundaria. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 8(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  21. Rico, L., Gómez, P., & Cañadas, M. C. (2014). Formación inicial en educación matemática de los maestros de primaria en España, 1991-2010. Revista de Educación. Available at:
  22. Rico, L. & Sierra, M. (1996). History and background of Spanish primary teachers training on mathematics and its didactics. In J. Giménez, S. Llinares, & M. V. Sánchez (Eds.), Becoming a primary teacher. Issues from mathematics education. Badajoz, Spain: Indugraphic.Google Scholar
  23. Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. & Houang, R. (2011). The role of opportunity to learn in teacher preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, W., Houang, R., Cogan, L., Blömeke, S., Tatto, M., Hsieh, F., et al (2008). Opportunity to learn in the preparation of mathematics teachers: Its structure and how it varies across six countries. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(5), 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmidt, W. H., Mcknight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D., Cogan, L. S., et al (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., et al (2007). Mathematics teaching in the 21st century (MT21). Michigan, MI: Michigan State University, Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education.Google Scholar
  27. Stapleton, L. M. & Leite, W. L. (2005). Teacher’s corner: A review of syllabi for a sample of structural equation modeling courses. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(4), 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tatto, M. T., Lerman, S. & Novotná, J. (2009). Overview of teacher education systems across the world. In R. Even & D. L. Ball (Eds.), The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics: The 15th ICMI Study (pp. 15–23). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tatto, et al (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IEA.Google Scholar
  30. TEDS-M (2008). Survey operations procedures—Unit 8. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  31. TEDS-M (2009). Participating countries. Retrieved from
  32. Travers, K. J. & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  33. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C. & Wolfe, R. G. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice in the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  34. Wiley, D. E. & Yoon, B. (1995). Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 355–370.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Unpublished document. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Universidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  3. 3.Departamento Didáctica de la Matemática, Facultad de Ciencias de la EducaciónUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations