TEACHER TRAINING AND INCLUSIVE TEACHING STRATEGIES IN MATHEMATICS: ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS IN SPAIN AND ECUADOR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/ieya.2026.12.1.4830Keywords:
inclusive education, teacher training, mathematics teaching, educational policies, pedagogical strategiesAbstract
This study contrasts the inclusion of inclusive teaching practice in mathematics within teacher training in Spain and Ecuador on the basis of their similarities, differences, and context factors that surround them. Through the mixed-method design, the survey, interviews, and focus group interviews were carried out among the pre-service teachers and the teacher trainers. The results show that while both countries have achieved some improvement in the implementation of inclusive practices, Spain shows more usage and effectiveness in these practices compared to Ecuador. The four most significant factors in determining implementation are national education policy, resources, school culture, and teacher attitude. Decentralized policies generate uneven implementation in Spain, and resource constraint and bureaucratic inefficiency impede effective implementation in Ecuador. By drawing attention to teacher education, school collaborative cultures, and access to technology as means of enhancing inclusive mathematics teaching, the study provides some of the following suggestions: ensuring stronger teacher preparation, establishing cooperative networks, and filling gaps in resources for consideration of more inclusive and more equitable practices.
Downloads
References
Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Booth, T., Black-Hawkins, K., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Guía para la evaluación y mejora de la educación inclusiva. Madrid: Consorcio Universitario para la Educación Inclusiva.
Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed.). Harvard Education Press.
Florian, L. (2019). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective, differentiated and reflective practices (7th ed.). Pearson.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2015). Vicious cycles of identifying and mathematizing: A case study of the development of mathematical failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(4), 504-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.999270
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2021). Catalyzing change in early childhood and elementary mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. NCTM.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2017). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12325
Shulman, L. S. (2018). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Slavin, R. E. (2018). Cooperative learning in schools. In R. E. Slavin (Ed.), Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed., pp. 221-243). Pearson.
UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248254
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Universidad de Valparaíso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Los investigadores(as), académicos(as) y profesionales de la educación que envíen originales para su evaluación por IEYA deberán asegurarse que los artículos cumplen con las instrucciones a los autores(as).
La Revista IEYA y cada uno de sus artículos están licenciados por Creative Commons 3.0.
El proceso editorial completa no supone ningún costo económico para los autores(as).
La Revista IEYA proporcionará un DOI a cada artículo.
Por último mencionar que en pos de la transparencia del proceso de revisión doble ciego, cada autor(a) recibirá la evaluación realizada por los revisores externos, lógicamente sin conocer la persona(as) que han realizado dicha evaluación.
