Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208966 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Innovation in Teacher Training: Curricular and Operational
Keys in Pedagogy Programs
Andrea Figueroa-Vargas 1,2,* and Sonia Casillas-Martín 3
1 Ph.D. Program Education, University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain
2 Faculty of Education, University Central of Chile, Santiago 8370178, Chile
3 Department of Didactics, Organization and Research Methods, Faculty of Education,
University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain; scasillasma@usal.es
* Correspondence: andrea.figueroal@usal.es; Tel.: +56-987299407
Abstract: This study addresses the curricular components and operational conditions required for
the success of curricular innovations in teacher education programs. This quantitative study ana-
lyzed components related to epistemic meanings, organization, design, and curricular policies, as
well as operational conditions for the development of curricular innovations in teacher training. A
Likert-scale survey was administered to academics from public universities in Chile that train teach-
ers. The method of analysis used SPSSv28 software, establishing a descriptive and inferential anal-
ysis through descriptive statistics of sex, age, gender, and position in the organization. The results
show that operational conditions, academic teams, organizational aspects, updating of regulatory
frameworks, infrastructure, and curricular policies are essential for the success of curricular inno-
vations. We conclude that curricular innovations at the institutional level require the generation of
curricular policies that contemplate the design, monitoring, and evaluation of the curriculum to fa-
vor the processes of curriculum review and quality assurance.
Keywords: innovation; curriculum; teacher training; curriculum design
1. Introduction
Studies on curricular innovation are recent and have involved specific curricular de-
velopment to address new training proposals that include general education (inclusion,
gender, and civic education), pedagogical training, disciplinary training, and practical
training. This has led to a knowledge gap in this area, particularly in studies on curricular
design and implementation, due to the nascent nature of this field of research.
The current debates, problems, and issues in the curriculum discussion reveal (i)
competency- and skills-based curricula versus content-based curricula, (ii) the incorpora-
tion of inclusive and socio-emotional education, and (iii) curricular flexibility and adapt-
ability as major themes in academic discussions. This study analyzes the curricular com-
ponents that support the disciplinary processes of curricular innovation for initial teacher
training.
Teacher training in Chile, due to its regulations, must incorporate transversal topics
(inclusion, gender, civic education), general education (inclusion, gender, and civic edu-
cation), pedagogical training, disciplinary training, and practical training into curricular
innovations. However, to ensure optimal implementation, it is necessary to have infra-
structural, technological, human, logical, administrative, and other conditions that sup-
port its execution.
Becoming a teacher involves undergoing a professional process in which values,
practices, and knowledge acquired during the training process are amalgamated. This
Citation:
Figueroa-Vargas, A.;
Casillas
-Martín, S. Innovation in
Teacher Training: Curricular and
Operational Keys in Pedagogy
Programs.
Sustainability
2024, 16, 8966.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/su16208966
Academic Editor: David Manzano
Sánchez
Received: 29 July 2024
Revised: 26 August 2024
Accepted: 2 September 2024
Published:
16 October 2024
Copyright:
© 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swierland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Aribution (CC BY) license
(hps://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 2 of 20
process involves, on the one hand, the experience of teaching and participating in an ed-
ucational community and, on the other hand, having conceptual tools that allow for ped-
agogical interpretation of everyday school life [1].
In initial teacher training, the bodies of knowledge proposed for it [2–5] and the ap-
propriation of areas of knowledge that intersect with pedagogy are broad, allowing future
educators to understand that situated professional practice, from the perspective of ped-
agogy, is necessary to construct a body of knowledge from the dialogic relationship be-
tween theory and practice [6,7] (In this regard, [8]) point out that the practice of teaching
responds to the demand for the construction of pedagogical knowledge, the practice of
the profession, and the teacher’s decision on the contributions of didactics and the areas
of knowledge that connect with education. Thus, knowledge about teaching practice is
constructed, relating to didactic aspects, the organization of students’ work during class,
and the creation of learning opportunities.
Research on teacher training presents at least three positions on the focal points
where teacher education is situated: (i) the professionalization of teaching and training
from standards [9] (ii) the development of social skills of future teachers [10] and (iii) the
understanding of the teacher as a subject of training instances [11]. From the perspective
of professional actions, ref. [12] argues that disciplinary knowledge is both substantive
and syntactic [13] (Grossman et al., 2005). Consequently, the amalgamation of the various
required knowledge must be mobilized in teaching practice [14,15] which also implies its
representation and communication, as this is where the formulation of pedagogical
thought lies.
In terms of curricular innovation, in the implementation of competence-based curric-
ula and the incorporation of the ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation Sys-
tem), higher education institutions have tended to focus on developing competencies de-
clared in graduation profiles and new educational models [16] often modifying one or
more curricular components in terms of content, teaching methods, teacher–student in-
teraction, and the organization of activities. However, curricular innovation is a process
that integrates a transformative phase from an institutional perspective and the academic
training of students [17] being constituted in terms of its meaning by the institutional
structure in which it is implemented [18].
Although curricular innovations cannot be reduced exclusively to the curricular di-
mension or curricular improvement [19], today they are one of the motivations behind
university processes and institutional improvement projects. However, this involves re-
sponding not only to curriculum management processes but also to the monitoring and
evaluation of the same. Given the high complexity of curricular innovation processes,
there are at least three essential aspects for successfully addressing them: (i) openness, (ii)
updating and improvement, and (iii) evaluation and monitoring [20].
These technical and political dimensions allow for the establishment of certain frame-
works for their design, implementation, and evaluation. Their trends, therefore, involve
recognizing differences, developing investigative stances, strengthening knowledge, and
constructing contextualized knowledge [21] focusing on the roles of students, teachers,
and the school. These trends suggest greater coherence between the macro, meso, micro,
and nano dimensions of curricular decision-making [22] Thus, in curricular innovations,
we speak of a process that adds complexity to the curricular processes themselves, where
different types, degrees, and kinds of innovation can be highlighted [23], which, being
constructed by their protagonists, can be momentary, specific, contextual, relative, and of
variable dimensions [24].
Among its problems, it is possible to note that the implementation of curricular in-
novation has been weak due to a culture rooted in traditional processes [25,26], elements
that are observed in the incipient curriculum monitoring processes carried out in higher
education institutions. In this regard, ref. [27] propose a set of institutional actions to ad-
dress these developments more successfully, including (i) clarifying the reasons behind
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 3 of 20
innovation processes, (ii) promoting access to clear and relevant information, (iii) includ-
ing the culture and characteristics of the institutions in the design and execution of the
innovation, (iv) ensuring time and space for the execution of this process, and (v) consid-
ering an incentive system. Thus, ref. [28] indicated that findings in research on curricular
innovation show that it is necessary to incorporate the expected results, contents, compe-
tencies, strategies, methodologies, evaluations, and resources to be used in curricular pro-
cesses.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the ultimate purpose of curricular innovation,
which is confined to the possibility of reconceptualizing, modernizing, and optimizing the
university curriculum [29], whose renewal is reported as a necessity in the literature. In
this vein, curricular innovation in Chile has been carried out through a series of teaching
and curricular innovation projects, including international mobility of students and aca-
demics [30,31], particularly in Chile’s adherence to the Tuning Latin America Project, in-
stitutional improvement projects [32] and the accreditation criteria and standards for
teaching programs [33].
2. Materials and Methods
The objective this study is to analyze the curricular components that support the dis-
ciplinary processes of curricular innovation for initial teacher training. The hypothesis for
this study is that the curricular components that organize study plans at both the macro-
and micro-curricular levels are comprehensively addressed by universities, considering
curricular design criteria closely linked to career accreditation standards.
This positivist study aimed to analyze the components related to epistemic meanings,
organization, design, and curricular policies, as well as the operational conditions for the
development of curricular innovations in teacher training. This case study was conducted
in 6 public Chilean universities, out of a total of 18 institutions of the same nature, territo-
rially distributed in the northern, central, and southern macrozones. The population con-
sisted of 238 academics, of whom 108 participated in the study, with an 80% confidence
level. The participants were contacted through an invitation from the vice-rectories and
academic directions.
To this end, a Likert-scale survey, constructed based on closed items, was applied
using four categories—5 (strongly agree), 4 (agree), 3 (neutral), 2 (disagree), and 1
(strongly disagree)—administered to academics who train teachers in Chile. Five catego-
ries or dimensions of analysis were defined: epistemic meanings for initial teacher train-
ing, curricular organization, academic policy, curricular design, and operational condi-
tions. The initial categories were defined based on studies on teacher training, curricular
design, and regulatory frameworks for career accreditation by the National Accreditation
Commission.
- Epistemic meanings in initial teacher training [34]
- Curricular organization: academic policy [35]
- Curricular design [9,34,35]
- Operational conditions [33] (National Accreditation Commission, 2022).
These categories are described in Table 1.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 4 of 20
Table 1. Categories and subcategories of this study.
Categories
Description of Items
Epistemic meanings for initial teacher train-
ing
This dimension analyzes the concept of a
teacher or educator, defined and proposed
for professional training by the academic
unit, the identification of the elements in-
trinsic to teacher training, and the academic
definitions for pedagogical, disciplinary,
practical, and general training.
Curricular organization
This corresponds to the institutional defini-
tions established for the training proposals,
such as curricular architecture; curricular
structure—macro- and micro-curricular;
lines of training—general, pedagogical, dis-
ciplinary, didactic, and practical; credit sys-
tem; and articulation of initial and post-
graduate training.
Academic policy
This includes all definitions issued by the
institution that impact the access system, di-
agnostics, and gaps for the initial, interme-
diate, and advanced student trajectory, as
well as retention strategies, progression,
graduation, and timely graduation in the in-
stitutional normative aspect.
Curricular design
This refers to the approach taken for curric-
ular design in study plans—entry profile,
graduation profile, contribution matrix,
study plan, and curricular activity pro-
grams—as well as the integration of peda-
gogical and disciplinary standards for
teacher training.
Operating conditions
This refers to the administrative manage-
ment conditions for the development of the
training processes of the academic unit.
These include financial conditions, material
resources, infrastructure, and the technolog-
ical necessities required for teacher training.
Source: own elaboration.
The estimated response time for the survey was 30 min, and it was administered in
Spanish. The Likert-scale survey instrument was validated by the Ethics Commiee of the
principal researcher’s home university. Data were stored confidentially in the repositories
of the principal researcher’s university, and the researchers commied to confidentiality
in the informed consent signed by the participants.
The information collection instrument used for this phase contained 58 questions or-
ganized into categories and subcategories of analysis, as presented in the previous table.
The dimensions—epistemic meanings (Dimension 1), curricular organization (Dimension
2), academic policy (Dimension 3), curricular design (Dimension 4), and operational con-
ditions (Dimension 5)—were developed into categories on a defined rating scale as fol-
lows:
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 5 of 20
- Strongly disagree: the statement meets less than 29% of the respondent’s experience
concerning the innovated plan.
- Disagree: the statement meets between 30% and 49% of the respondent’s experience
concerning the innovated plan.
- Agree: the statement meets between 50% and 79% of the respondent’s experience
concerning the innovated plan.
- Strongly agree: the statement meets between 80% and 100% of the respondent’s ex-
perience concerning the innovated plan.
The instrument was authored by Andrea Figueroa-Vargas and validated by Sonia
Casillas-Martin.
The survey was sent to selected academics through an intentional sample, designed
for this study, via a Google Forms questionnaire. This resulted in a sample of 108 academ-
ics from a population of 238, corresponding to an 80% confidence level for the instrument.
Using the statistical package SPSS version 28, the reliability index of the survey was
checked using Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient, which established that the reliability of
the 58 items composing the complete survey is excellent (α = 0.975). At the dimension
level, reliability was highly acceptable in the analyses referring to Dimension 2 (α = 0.943),
Dimension 4 (α = 0.950), and Dimension 5 (α = 0.932). Meanwhile, the other dimensions
obtained a very good Cronbach’s alpha: Dimension 1 (α = 0.830) and Dimension 3 (α =
0.836), indicating that the survey has high reliability both overall and for each dimension.
For factor extraction, the principal components method was used, which explains the
greatest possible amount of variance in the observed data and analyzes the total variance
associated with the items, including specific variance and error variance [34] The rotation
that gave the best results was the direct oblimin criterion, a method for oblique (non-or-
thogonal) rotation that adjusts the axes based on loadings, seeking a beer approximation
because the variance is distributed among all factors. To make these factors less oblique,
a delta of 0.5 was used.
The model was forced to establish 5 factors, considering that the instrument contains
5 dimensions in its construction, and coefficients below 0.5 were suppressed as a model
quality criterion. In this sense, to determine whether the items were sufficiently interre-
lated for the exploratory factor analysis to be applied beneficially, the following statistical
tests were employed: (i) the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy,
and (ii) Bartle’s test of sphericity.
The KMO test measures the suitability of the data for factor analysis, assessing the
adequacy of sampling for each variable and for the entire model. It measures the propor-
tion of variance among variables that might be common variance, indicating that the lower
the proportion, the more suitable the data for factor analysis. The KMO statistic yields
values between 0 and 1; the KMO values obtained ranged from 0.8 to 1, indicating that the
sampling was adequate. Bartle’s test of sphericity tests the null hypothesis that the cor-
relation matrix is not an identity matrix, suggesting no relationship between variables. A
significance level below 5% (p-value = 0.05) is accepted as valid for this test. The results of
these tests yielded a KMO = 0.88 and a p-value = 0.000 for Bartle’s test of sphericity, in-
dicating that factor analysis is useful with the analyzed data.
In the initial analysis, the anti-image correlation matrix was examined to identify
items with lower correlations that could affect the results. Two items with correlations
below 0.70 were removed: item 2 from Dimension 1, and item 4 from Dimension 2. Sub-
sequently, the analysis was conducted again.
The 5 factors requested in the analysis explained 61.7% of the variance. The commu-
nalities analysis indicated (i) that Dimension 1 has only 2 items with values above 0.60, (ii)
that all other dimensions have a sufficient number of items with values above 0.60, and
(iii) that in Dimension 5, all items exceed this value [35].
The rotated matrix allowed for the selection of 27 items from the 58 initially compris-
ing the instrument: 3 items in Dimension 1, 5 items in Dimension 2, 3 items in Dimension
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 6 of 20
3, 11 items in Dimension 4, and the initial 5 items in Dimension 5, which remained un-
changed. All dimensions or factors were composed of 3 or more items, meeting the mini-
mum requirement to configure a factor [35].
3. Results
3.1. Overall Survey Results
The first dimension proposes analyzing the concept of teacher or educator as agreed
upon, defined, and proposed for professional training, identifying the elements inherent
to teacher training, along with the academic definitions for the pedagogical, disciplinary,
and practical areas. This category corresponds to establishing the understandings that re-
spondents have regarding teacher training.
This category specifically refers to the constitutive elements that define the respond-
ents’ conception of a teacher or educator, and with which they understand initial teacher
training. Regarding the statement “Initial Teacher Training is understood in my academic
unit as a science that studies the processes of teaching and learning of children, adoles-
cents, and young people at different levels, trajectories, and diversities”, 34.7% of respond-
ents strongly agreed and 42.9% agreed with this statement, establishing a positive trend
close to 70%.
Concerning the second statement, “Initial teacher training as conceived in our aca-
demic unit gives a predominant role to practice rather than didactic and disciplinary
knowledge”, 41% of respondents agreed, 27.6% disagreed, and 22.4% were neutral, while
only 8.6% strongly disagreed. This indicates that the influence of the conception of prac-
tical training in teacher education has been considered in the academics’ perceptions for
integrating initial teacher training. These results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Results by Dimension 1.
N
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I1
34.7%
42.9%
12.2%
10.2%
I2
22.4%
41.8%
27.6%
8.2%
I3
58.2%
28.6%
4.1%
9.2%
I4
53.1%
35.7%
3.1%
8.2%
I5
51.0%
40.8%
3.1%
5.1%
I6
70.4%
24.5%
0.0%
5.1%
I7
67.3%
25.5%
3.1%
4.1%
T DI
43.7%
34.2%
7.1%
7.1%
Source: own elaboration.
In summary, the results of the dimension 1 are expressed in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 7 of 20
Figure 1. Summary of epistemic meanings.
The dimension of curricular organization (Dimension 2) corresponds to the institu-
tional definitions established for educational proposals, such as the curriculum concep-
tion, curricular structure, training lines, credit system, and the articulation between initial
and postgraduate training.
In general, all items in this dimension received majority agreement from the respond-
ents. However, there were certain items that showed a relatively higher percentage of dis-
agreement, particularly concentrated around the transferable credit system and the esti-
mation of students’ academic workload. Specifically, in this area, the following observa-
tions can be made: (i) the academic workload expressed in transferable credits is con-
sistent with the face-to-face hours (38.8% disagreement); (ii) the estimation of the student’s
academic workload, through face-to-face and independent work hours, allows for the ap-
propriation of the learning outcomes defined for professional training (31.6% disagree-
ment); and (iii) the students’ face-to-face work time is consistent with the demands that
they must meet in the curricular activities of the study plan (30.6% disagreement). These
results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Results by Dimension 2.
N
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I8
46.9%
39.8%
5.1%
8.2%
I9
33.7%
43.9%
14.3%
8.2%
I10
43.9%
39.8%
9.2%
7.1%
I11
31.6%
52.0%
10.2%
6.1%
I12
56.1%
35.7%
4.1%
4.1%
I13
31.6%
42.9%
16.3%
9.2%
I14
34.7%
45.9%
10.2%
9.2%
I15
32.7%
50.0%
12.2%
5.1%
I16
35.7%
46.9%
10.2%
7.1%
I17
43.9%
41.8%
9.2%
5.1%
I18
42.9%
45.9%
6.1%
5.1%
I19
48.0%
42.9%
4.1%
5.1%
I20
38.8%
49.0%
7.1%
5.1%
I21
49.0%
34.7%
9.2%
7.1%
I22
45.9%
36.7%
11.2%
6.1%
I23
22.4%
49%
21.4%
7.1%
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 8 of 20
I24
40.8%
49.0%
5.1%
5.1%
I25
52.0%
35.7%
6.1%
6.1%
I26
20.4%
40.8%
28.6%
10.2%
I27
18.45%
50.0%
23.5%
8.2%
I28
60.2%
26.5%
7.1%
6.1%
I29
30.6%
38.8%
20.4%
10.2%
I30
54.1%
33.7%
7.1%
5.1%
I31
53.1%
37.8%
4.1%
5.1%
I32
49%
34.7%
10.2%
5.1%
Total D2
38.53%
41.76%
10.67%
6.65%
Source: own elaboration.
In summary, the results of the dimension 2 are expressed in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Summary of curricular organization.
The third dimension corresponds to academy policy. This category encompasses all
definitions issued by the institution that impact the macro-curricular structure in initial
teacher training.
Regarding the clarity and guidance provided by academic policy in the area of cur-
ricular innovation, the results suggest a mixed perception. While a significant 77.5% ex-
pressed agreement or strong agreement that academic policy establishes guidelines for
curricular construction, there were some discrepancies in the assessment of whether these
guidelines encompass all dimensions of design, implementation, and curricular evalua-
tion. Although 68.4% were in the agreement range, a considerable 31.7% expressed disa-
greement or strong disagreement, indicating some perceived ambiguity or insufficiency
in institutional policies related to curricular innovation.
In terms of the guidance provided by academic policy for the different stages of the
training process, a similar proportion of agreement and disagreement was observed, with
75.5% in the agreement range. However, perceptions were more positive regarding the
monitoring and evaluation of curricular innovations. A substantial 93.8% of participants
agreed or strongly agreed on the need for a macro and micro monitoring model that con-
siders operational conditions and the acquisition of competencies.
Regarding the incorporation of adjustments and modifications to institutional poli-
cies and study plans as a result of evaluating curricular innovation processes, 89.8% ex-
pressed agreement. This suggests strong support for the idea that evaluations should lead
to concrete changes and adjustments in educational policies. These results are shown in
Table 4.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 9 of 20
Table 4. Results by Dimension 3.
N
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I33
15.3%
62.2%
15.3%
7.1%
I34
24.5%
51.0%
17.3%
7.1%
I35
20.4%
48.0%
23.5%
8.2%
I36
52.0%
41.8%
0.0%
6.1%
I37
64.3%
26.5%
3.1%
6.1%
I38
58.2%
31.6%
4.1%
6.1%
Total D3
39.1%
43.5%
10.5%
6.7%
Source: own elaboration.
In summary, the results of the dimension 3 are expressed in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Summary of academic policy.
The fourth dimension refers to curriculum design. Regarding the curricular approach
of the study plan, there was a relatively equal distribution between agreement and disa-
greement categories, indicating diverse perspectives on the theoretical emphasis pro-
moted by the academic unit of origin; 75.5% of respondents were in agreement, while
24.4% expressed disagreement or strong disagreement, signaling a lack of consensus in
this area.
In terms of the clarity and precision of the graduation profile, there was significant
support; 89.8% agreed or strongly agreed that the graduation profile clearly and precisely
indicates the knowledge, skills, and competencies expected at the end of the study plan.
Furthermore, 88.8% and 84.7% agreed that the graduation profile explicitly outlines the
essential knowledge for professional training and guides the implementation of the study
plan, respectively.
However, there were some discrepancies regarding the incorporation of pedagogical
and disciplinary standards in the graduation profile; 70.4% expressed agreement, but
29.6% expressed disagreement or strong disagreement, indicating the need for greater
clarity or consensus on integrating standards into the formulation of the graduation pro-
file.
Regarding the coherence and alignment of the curricular matrix and curriculum map,
82.6% agreed or strongly agreed that they are coherent in terms of sequence, complexity,
and integration of knowledge.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 10 of 20
In terms of curricular activities, there was strong support for the idea that they exhibit
internal coherence among the definition of content, methodologies, resources, and com-
petency evaluation, with 80.4% in agreement. Additionally, 82.6% agreed that practical
and theoretical curricular activities complement each other, reflecting an appreciation for
the integrality of the training. These results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Results by Dimension 4.
N
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I39
26.5%
49.0%
17.3%
7.1%
I40
61.2%
28.6%
4.1%
6.1%
I41
59.2%
29.6%
4.1%
7.1%
I42
31.6%
38.8%
22.4%
7.1%
I43
48.0%
36.7%
9.2%
6.1%
I44
38.8%
43.9%
10.2%
7.1%
I45
35.7%
46.9%
11.2%
6.1%
I46
53.1%
37.8%
3.1%
6.1%
I47
61.2%
26.5%
7.1%
5.1%
I48
34.7%
39.8%
16.3%
9.2%
I49
30.6%
52.0%
11.2%
6.1%
I50
32.7%
45.9%
14.3%
7.1%
I51
22.4%
58.2%
13.3%
6.1%
I52
36.7%
45.9%
11.2%
6.1%
I53
44.9%
43.9%
5.1%
6.1%
Total D4
38.84%
41.47%
10.67%
6.57%
Source: own elaboration.
In summary, the results of the dimension 4 are expressed in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Curriculum design.
The operationalization of the necessary conditions for curricular implementation re-
lates to the theoretical emphasis promoted by the program.
Regarding the need for formalized regulations for curricular implementation, an
overwhelming 93.9% of respondents agreed, highlighting the importance of having a clear
and up-to-date regulatory framework to guide curriculum development.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 11 of 20
The importance of strategic planning at the institutional, faculty, and program levels
for acquiring and maintaining material and technological resources also received signifi-
cant support, with 94.8% in agreement. The statement about the need for resources for
student learning received even broader support, with 95.9% in agreement.
Regarding the need for specific time allocations for curricular commiee work, 93.8%
agreed, underscoring the importance of dedicating specific time for curriculum monitor-
ing and evaluation work.
Finally, the importance of having adequate facilities and material conditions for stu-
dent learning received strong support, with 94.9% in agreement. This highlights the
shared perception that physical learning environments are a key element for the effective
implementation of study plans. These results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Results by Dimension 5.
N
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I54
70.4%
23.5%
1.0%
5.1%
I55
72.4%
22.4%
0.0%
5.1%
I56
76.5%
17.3%
1.0%
5.1%
I57
79.6%
15.3%
0.0%
5.1%
I58
79.6%
15.3%
0.0%
5.1%
Total D5
75.7%
18.7%
0.3%
5.1%
Source: own elaboration.
In summary, the results of the dimension 5 are expressed in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Operational conditions.
Dimensions 1, 3, and 5 (D1: epistemic meanings in initial teacher training, D3: aca-
demic policy, and D5: operational conditions) exhibited a smaller dispersion of results,
represented by lower standard deviation values. However, Dimensions 2 and 4 (D2: cur-
ricular organization and D4: curricular design) showed higher standard deviation values,
indicating more dispersed results.
Regarding the skewness and kurtosis statistics, the following observations can be
made:
Dimension 1: Epistemic meanings in initial teacher training showed a right-skewed
distribution, with values concentrated in the higher scores (skewness = −1.056). The dis-
tribution was leptokurtic (kurtosis = 1.079), indicating the presence of more extreme out-
liers.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 12 of 20
Dimension 2: Curricular organization also displayed a right-skewed distribution,
with a tendency to be concentrated in higher scores (skewness = −0.719). is the distribution
was leptokurtic (kurtosis = 0.616), suggesting the presence of more extreme outliers.
Dimension 3: Academic policy presented a right-skewed distribution with a relative
concentration in higher scores (skewness = −0.459). The distribution was platykurtic (kur-
tosis = −0.006), indicating fewer extreme outliers.
Dimension 4: Curricular design showed a right-skewed distribution with a relative
concentration in higher scores (skewness = −0.579). It was also platykurtic (kurtosis =
−0.222), indicating fewer extreme outliers.
Dimension 5: Operational conditions had high values for both skewness (−2.155) and
kurtosis (4.449), indicating a greater concentration of the distribution in higher values and
a leptokurtic curve. All of these data can be seen in Table 7.
Table 7. Overall results by dimension.
D N Minimum Maximum
Average
Standard
Deviation
Symmetry Kurtosis
D1
108
14
28
23.69
3.370
1 056
1.079
D2
108
50
100
81.52
11.437
−0.719
0.616
D3
108
12
24
19.35
2.968
−0.459
−0.006
D4
108
30
60
48.83
8.048
−0.579
−0.222
D5
108
10
20
18.54
2.474
2.739
4.449
Source: own elaboration. D1: epistemic meanings in initial teacher training; D2: curricular organi-
zation; D3: academic policy; D4: curricular design; D5: operational conditions.
3.2. Results of Descriptive Statistics by Gender
When comparing the standard deviation statistics, it can be observed that the disper-
sion of results is greater for men, with higher statistics in all dimensions. Both men and
women show skewness indicating a concentration of distribution in higher values across
all dimensions, particularly in Dimension 5 (operational conditions).
Regarding kurtosis, it is evident that, in Dimensions 1, 2, and 5—epistemic meanings
in initial teacher training, curricular organization, and operational conditions, respec-
tively—the responses from women exhibit more extreme outliers compared to men. No-
tably, in Dimension 5 (operational conditions), women’s responses configure a leptokurtic
curve, indicating a higher presence of extreme outliers (kurtosis = 6.802). In dimension 3
(academic policy), both genders show a platykurtic curve, indicating fewer extreme out-
liers, with this being more evident in men.
Finally, in Dimension 4 (curricular design), men show a platykurtic curve with fewer
extreme outliers, while women show the opposite, although the statistical value is very
close to the normal curve (kurtosis = 0.042) (see Table 8).
Table 8. Results of descriptive statistics by gender.
Sex D N Minimum Maximum Average
Standard
Deviation
Symmetry Kurtosis
H
D1
56
14
28
23.41
3.760
−0.995
0.639
D2
56
50
100
80.45
12.176
−0.778
0.472
D3
56
12
24
18.75
3.064
−0.502
−0.176
D4
56
30
60
48.25
8.660
−0.539
−0.449
D5
56
10
20
18.25
2.830
−1.906
2.979
M
D1
52
14
28
24.00
2.897
−0.981
1.327
D2
52
50
100
82.67
10.581
−0.554
0.664
D3
52
12
24
20.00
2.744
−0.308
−0.066
D4
52
30
60
49.46
7.366
−0.569
0.042
D5
52
10
20
18.85
2.004
−2.396
6.802
Source: own elaboration. D1: epistemic meanings in initial teacher training; D2: curricular organi-
zation; D3: academic policy; D4: curricular design; D5: operational conditions.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 13 of 20
3.3. Results of Descriptive Statistics by Age
When comparing descriptive statistics by age range, it can be observed that, in re-
spondents under 65 years old, the dispersion is very similar in each of the dimensions;
however, the standard deviation values are higher, especially in Dimensions 2 and 4 (or-
ganization and curricular design, respectively). Regarding skewness, in most dimensions,
there continues to be a concentration of responses towards higher values for all age ranges;
the exceptions are Dimension 3 (academic policy) in the 36–45 age range and Dimension
4 (curricular design) in the over-65 age range, which show responses indicating a tilt to-
wards lower values.
On the other hand, kurtosis shows that, in the youngest age range (25 to 35 years),
responses in all dimensions form a platykurtic curve, meaning fewer extreme outliers. A
similar trend is observed in the 36 to 45 age range, except for Dimension 5 (operational
conditions), which shows a value indicating a leptokurtic curve. This trend changes in the
46 to 65 age range, where the curves for Dimensions 2, 3, and 4 (curricular organization,
academic policy, and curricular design, respectively) are platykurtic, while those for Di-
mensions 1 and 5 (epistemic meanings in initial teacher training, and operational condi-
tions, respectively) are leptokurtic, with more extreme outliers (see Table 9).
Table 9. Results of descriptive statistics by age.
Age Range D N Minimum Maximum Average
Standard
Deviation
Symmetry Kurtosis
25–35
D1
8
19
28
24.88
3.182
−0.806
−0.057
D2
8
74
99
87.25
9.161
−0.195
−1.436
D3
8
16
24
20.13
2.696
−0.293
−0.764
D4
8
37
60
52.38
8.733
−0.718
−0.697
D5
8
15
20
18.00
2.268
588
−1.944
36–45
D1
31
19
28
23.94
2.768
−0.171
−1.240
D2
31
58
100
82.71
10.329
−0.217
−0.384
D3
31
15
24
19.26
2.756
0.131
−0.769
D4
31
32
60
49.77
7.671
−0.603
−0.433
D5
31
15
20
19.23
1.407
2.040
3.722
46–55
D1
29
14
28
23.41
3.438
−1.352
2.217
D2
29
50
99
79.86
10.056
−0.632
1.330
D3
29
12
24
19.66
2.869
−0.397
0.274
D4
29
30
60
48.52
6.495
−0.698
1.169
D5
29
10
20
18.21
2.366
−1.742
3.772
56–65
D1
33
14
28
24.00
3.288
−1.151
1.201
D2
33
50
100
82.18
11.485
−0.993
1.346
D3
33
12
24
19.27
2.875
−0.711
0.937
D4
33
30
60
48.55
7.981
−0.625
0.201
D5
33
10
20
18.64
2.667
−2.423
5.429
65 and above
D1
6
14
27
22.17
4.708
−1.071
1.193
D2
6
50
99
77.33
18.206
−0.412
−0.921
D3
6
12
23
19.00
4.604
−0.774
−1.188
D4
6
30
60
45.50
13.096
0.038
−2.578
D5
6
10
20
18.17
4.021
−2.397
5.786
Source: own elaboration. D1: epistemic meanings in initial teacher training; D2: curricular organi-
zation; D3: academic policy; D4: curricular design; D5: operational conditions.
3.4. Results of Descriptive Statistics by Academic Position in the Institution
When comparing descriptive statistics by academic position, it is possible to observe
that, in Dimension 2 (curricular organization), the responses of the respondents show the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 14 of 20
greatest dispersion for all positions. On the other hand, respondents holding the positions
of academic and department heads show the greatest dispersion in their responses to Di-
mensions 1 and 4 (epistemic meanings in initial teacher training, and curricular design,
respectively). Additionally, the positions of academic secretary, department head, and
dean show the greatest dispersion in their responses to Dimension 2 (curricular organiza-
tion).
With regard to skewness, in most dimensions, there is still a concentration of re-
sponses toward higher values, except for the responses of deans, which show responses
concentrated toward lower values in Dimensions 1 to 4 (epistemic meanings in initial
teacher training, and curricular design, respectively).
Kurtosis could not be measured for the deans, as there were only three cases. The
responses of academics in Dimensions 1, 2, and 5—epistemic meanings in initial teacher
training, curricular organization, and operational conditions, respectively—form a lepto-
kurtic curve, with more extreme outliers, especially in Dimension 5 (operational condi-
tions). In contrast, Dimension 4 (curricular design) forms a platykurtic curve, and Dimen-
sion 3 (academic policy) approaches a normal curve.
For the academic secretaries, their responses form a leptokurtic curve in Dimensions
1, 3, and 4—epistemic meanings in initial teacher training, academic policy, and curricular
design, respectively. In Dimensions 2 and 5—curricular organization and operational con-
ditions, respectively—a platykurtic curve is observed, with less extreme outliers. Lastly,
the responses of department directors form leptokurtic curves in Dimensions 1, 2, 4, and
5—epistemic meanings in initial teacher training, curricular organization, curricular de-
sign, and operational conditions, respectively—showing more extreme outliers, especially
in the last dimension (see Table 5). These results are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Summary of descriptive statistics by position at the university.
Position D N Minimum Maximum Average
Standard
Deviation
Symmetry Kurtosis
Academic
D1
82
14
28
23.94
3.497
−1.150
1.114
D2
82
50
100
82.23
11.731
−0.820
0.681
D3
82
12
24
19.52
3.028
−0.518
0.072
D4
82
30
60
49.11
8.597
−0.595
−0.487
D5
82
10
20
18.68
2.464
−2.406
5.570
Academic secretary
D1
8
20
26
23.25
1.753
−0.504
1.357
D2
8
68
96
82.25
9.285
−0.116
−0.694
D3
8
16
22
19.50
2.000
−0.357
0.104
D4
8
44
56
49.13
3.441
0.841
2.314
D5
8
15
20
17.63
2.326
−0.030
−2.465
School director
D1
13
14
27
22.54
3.573
−1.080
1.325
D2
13
50
89
76.46
10.485
−1.222
2.368
D3
13
12
23
18.31
3.172
−0.240
−0.114
D4
13
30
56
46.62
6.801
−1.163
1.809
D5
13
10
20
18.00
3.000
−1.882
3.488
Dean
D1
3
21
25
22.67
2.082
1.293
D2
3
73
99
85.67
13.013
0.230
D3
3
18
23
20.00
2.646
1.458
D4
3
47
60
52.33
6.807
1.361
D5
3
19
20
19.67
0.577
−1.732
Source: own elaboration. D1: epistemic meanings in initial teacher training; D2: curricular organi-
zation; D3: academic policy; D4: curricular design; D5: operational conditions.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 15 of 20
3.5. Results of Inferential Analysis (Hypothesis Testing)
Before conducting the specific inferential analysis for this study’s quantitative phase,
the normality of the data was verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, also known as
the K-S test. The results of the K-S test from the questionnaire applied to determine cur-
ricular components, epistemic understandings, and operational conditions for initial
teacher training in education programs demonstrate that the Likert-scale survey data do
not follow a normal distribution in any of the dimensions measured. In light of this, only
the Wilcoxon test was applied, as the normality indicator for the test, both generally and
for each dimension of the Likert survey, did not show a normal distribution.
In this sense, based on the results of the normality test, the methodological choice
was made to use the Wilcoxon test (or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to compare the me-
dian of a sample with a theoretical median and determine whether there were differences
between them. This allowed for establishing, in the case of this study, whether the differ-
ence was not due to chance, with statistical significance set at p = 0.05, for a sample com-
pared to a theoretical value.
The previously mentioned Wilcoxon test was conducted using the SPSS version 28
statistical package. Methodologically, a theoretical median was defined for each of the five
dimensions contained in the survey, with the null hypothesis \(H_0\) being that there
were no differences between the theoretical and obtained medians in the dimension, and
the alternative hypothesis \(H_1\) being that the theoretical and obtained medians were
different, indicating that the differences were not due to chance.
The results obtained from the Wilcoxon test for each dimension were as follows.
These results are shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Wilcoxon test results.
D
Theoretical
Median
Test Value (Z)
Significance
(p-Value)
Test Result
CC
87
9.021
0.000
The null hypothesis is rejected
D1
10
9.034
0.000
The null hypothesis is rejected
D2
38
9.022
0.000
The null hypothesis is rejected
D3
9
9.039
0.000
The null hypothesis is rejected
D4
22
9.025
0.000
The null hypothesis is rejected
D5
8
9.234
0.000
The null hypothesis is rejected
CC: complete questionnaire; D1: epistemic meanings in initial teacher training; D2: curricular or-
ganization; D3: academic policy; D4: curricular design; D5: operating conditions. Source: own elab-
oration.
The results of the Wilcoxon test allow us to reject the null hypothesis for both the
complete instrument and each of the five dimensions that it comprises. Therefore, it was
assumed that the values obtained in the sample to which the questionnaire was applied
were not due to chance, but rather that there was statistical corroboration for the complete
questionnaire and each of its dimensions.
4. Discussion
Curricular innovation processes have been materialized and operationalized accord-
ing to the specific university context and the particularities of higher education institu-
tions. Currently, various levels of development are reported in the literature: an initiation-
design phase based on components or inputs for curriculum design, such as curricular
foundations, the formative model, the educational project, professional standards, etc.
[36], along with a second phase of implementation that considers academic factors that
generate policies for updating and improvement, work organization, curriculum manage-
ment, belief systems in innovation, and an evaluation phase whose purpose is to analyze
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 16 of 20
the impact and institutional learning capacity, as well as the monitoring and tracking of
the curriculum
Considering that the applied survey refers to innovation processes (established in the
second phase, involving academics who have experience in this area and have undergone
the transition from a classical training process to a competency-based one, as indicated by
[37] they achieved the capacity to execute redesigns, focusing on quality (accreditation)
and institutional change capacity, which led to the creation of technical support units and
new regulations (p. 34).
In this study, it is possible to observe that the notion of initial teacher education rec-
ognizes that the foundation of knowledge is central to formative processes. The significant
emphasis placed on content knowledge, curriculum, and didactics shapes the understand-
ing of academics regarding how teacher education should be organized. This finding is
reaffirmed in the study by [38]. It not only has a direct impact on the design of formative
plans and curricular grids for teaching and pedagogy programs but also influences nu-
merous additional conceptions surrounding teaching practice. In this sense, it can be de-
termined that a concurrent training model [39], which is integrative and develops greater
complexities concerning content acquisition and treatment according to the challenges
outlined by [38] has not yet been adopted.
Therefore, the relevance of disciplinary–didactic and general pedagogical
knowledge, along with knowledge of educational sciences, shapes teacher education and
its curricula in Chile. This is corroborated by the findings of [39] who argue that the ability
to integrate disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge enhances the development of peda-
gogical content knowledge in initial teacher education. Although there has been a shift
towards conceptualizing teacher training in relation to both disciplinary learning and stu-
dent learning, a significant number of academics still do not agree that the teacher is a
specialist in the learning of their discipline.
Nevertheless, there is a traditional conception regarding practical training, due to the
instrumental tasks that future teachers sometimes perform during these instances, as well
as the limited connection with teacher professionalization. This area, although there has
been a transition to practical training models in public universities that reframe this pro-
cess, is still influenced by traditional conceptions and visions. These traditional views per-
meate the collective notions and imaginaries of secondary education programs, which are
more focused on teaching rather than on learning.
The present study evidences that the conception of teacher training involves signifi-
cant work on understanding the educational system, teaching processes, and curricular
tools, as noted by Shulman (2005) [40] and Gauthier et al. (1998) [41] regarding the body
of knowledge necessary for teacher education. This implies that the expansion of required
knowledge in teacher training is multidimensional.
Regarding curricular processes, there is a broad understanding that the curriculum
reflects a set of struggles and emphases where historical, political, and sociocultural vari-
ables intersect, influencing the definition of content selection for initial teacher training.
Morelli (2016) [42] points out that it is an “intellectual act that opens up spaces for rup-
tures, dissent, and paralogies, highlighting ways of relating, communicating, and legiti-
mizing an educational discourse” (p. 30). This process is thus understood as an organiza-
tion involving the selection of knowledge, skills, and elements that interact between the-
ory and practice. Therefore, curricular alignment among the various curricular instru-
ments that organize university activities is crucial—namely, between the educational
model, macro-curricular study plans, and teaching practice—as highlighted by [43]and
observed by academics in the research.
On the other hand, the research findings reveal that operational conditions for cur-
ricular implementation are a necessary dimension for institutions to consider, as they al-
low for the analysis and projection of the feasibility of curricular innovation processes and
their implementation. These conditions cannot be separated from the formative concep-
tions defined by academic teams. In this sense, curricular innovations for teacher training
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 17 of 20
require elements related to updating and redesigning the curriculum, as well as analysis
and discussion, as proposed by [44]: (i) having a curriculum analysis process, (ii) using
graphical tools for curriculum mapping, and (iii) having an information system to manage
the process.
Understood in this way, the process of organization has implications for the selection
of knowledge, skills, and elements that interact between theory and practice. Therefore,
curricular alignment between the various curricular instruments used to organize univer-
sity activities is crucial, meaning alignment between the educational model, macro-cur-
ricular study plans, and teaching practice, as noted by [44].
The knowledge structures and training lines for initial teacher education have been
extensively reported, revealing that they contain the essential elements for future profes-
sional practice. Therefore, academics highlight that their main inclinations from initial
training are reflected in the study plans. The findings of [45] confirm that future teachers
build their pedagogical knowledge through the experiential interaction of their practices,
as well as their ideas and reflections.
On the other hand, the importance of initial teacher education standards as an ele-
ment or input to be integrated into study plans is beginning to become visible. On the one
hand, pedagogical standards are seen as a way to articulate with disciplinary and didactic
training, allowing for the updating of knowledge integrated with teacher education. Ac-
cording to [45], the incorporation of pedagogical standards should be transferred between
the training programs that make up the curricula of teacher education programs.
In this regard, the estimation of the student’s academic workload should be a con-
stantly reviewed element in study plans and calibrated considering the dynamism of the
educational curriculum. The proposals for generating instruments to measure student
workload, as suggested by [46], facilitate and provide the necessary data for decision-
making in management and evaluation, helping to address issues related to academic
overload. This is a necessary situation to evaluate in the face of generating study plans
with large amounts of content.
5. Conclusions
Among the main conclusions of this study, it highlights the importance of the notion
of initial teacher training in Chile, recognizing that the foundation of knowledge is central
to the formative processes. Granting significant importance to content knowledge, curric-
ula, and didactics shapes the understanding of academics regarding how teacher training
should be conducted. In this sense, this work indicates that there has not yet been a tran-
sition to an integrative model of training that develops greater complexities regarding the
acquisition and treatment of content.
Therefore, the relevance of disciplinary–didactic and general pedagogical
knowledge, along with knowledge of the educational sciences, defines teacher training
and study plans in Chile. This is corroborated by studies which argues that the possibility
of articulating disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge enhances the development of
pedagogical content knowledge in initial teacher training. Although there has been a shift
towards conceptualizing teacher training in relation to both disciplinary learning and stu-
dent learning, a significant number of academics still do not agree that the teacher is a
specialist in the learning of their discipline. In this regard, practical training has been in-
tegrated progressively and early, only through the guidelines of the National Accredita-
tion Commission for the criteria and standards of teacher training programs.
Nevertheless, there is a traditional conception regarding practical training, due to the
instrumental tasks that future teachers sometimes perform during these instances, as well
as the limited connection with teacher professionalization. This area, although there has
been a transition to practical training models in public universities that reframe this pro-
cess, is still influenced by traditional conceptions and visions. These traditional views per-
meate the collective notions and imaginaries of secondary education programs, which are
more focused on teaching rather than on learning.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 18 of 20
The present study shows that the conception of teacher training involves substantial
work in understanding the educational system, teaching processes, and curricular instru-
ments. This means that the expansion of the knowledge required in teacher training is
multidimensional. In this sense, regarding curricular processes, there is a broad under-
standing that the curriculum reflects a set of struggles and emphases, intersecting histor-
ical, political, and sociocultural variables that influence the definition and selection of con-
tent for initial teacher training.
Among the operational conditions for curricular implementation, it is observed as a
necessary dimension for institutions, as it allows for the analysis and projection of the
feasibility of curricular innovation processes and their implementation. In this regard, up-
dating policies and regulations enables improvements in academic indicators of retention
and graduation through normative devices.
On the other hand, the importance of strategic planning at the institutional, faculty,
and program levels for the acquisition and maintenance of material and technological re-
sources is also evident as a consideration. This implies the need for facilities and resources
for student learning, such as laboratories, simulation rooms, and software, among others.
In this regard, this study’s findings highlight the shared perception among academics that
physical learning environments are a key element for the effective implementation of cur-
ricula.
This study’s limitations include (i) a scarcity of updated literature on curricular inno-
vation in teacher training; (ii) the maturity of the research object, as it is a novel field of
knowledge and research; and (iii) access to participants due to the timing of the academic
year when the fieldwork was conducted.
This study’s results are expected to contribute to the establishment of a model for
curricular design, monitoring, and evaluation in state universities in Chile for teacher
training, from the perspective of quality assurance processes. This model is expected to
strengthen internal institutional mechanisms for curriculum management and be imple-
mented at the institutional level as well as in teacher education programs locally.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F.-V.; methodology, A.F.-V. and S.C.-M.; software,
A.F.-V.; validation, A.F.-V.; formal analysis, A.F.-V.; investigation, A.F.-V.; resources, A.F.-V.; data
curation, A.F.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F.-V.; writing—review and editing, A.F.-V.
and S.C.-M.; visualization, A.F.-V.; supervision, S.C.-M.; project administration, A.F.-V.; funding ac-
quisition, A.F.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this
study.
Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional. Available online: hps://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1087343 (accessed on 20
August 2024).
2. Shulman, L. Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard. Educ. Rev. 1987, 57, 1–22.
3. Bernstein, B.; Díaz Villa, M.; López Jiménez, N. Hacia Una Sociología del Discurso Pedagógico, 1st ed.; Cooperativa Editorial Mag-
isterio: Bogota, Colombia, 2000.
4. Morine-Dersheimer, G.; Kent, T. The Complex Nature and Sources of Teacher’s Pedagogical Knowledge. In Examining Pedagog-
ical Content Knowledge; Gess-Newsome, J.; Lederman, N.G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 21–50.
5. Tardif, M.; Raymond, D. Saberes, tempo e aprendizagem do trabalho no magisterio. Educação Sociedade 2000, 21, 209–244.
6. Suckel, M.; Campos, D.; Sáez, G.; Rodríguez, G. Trayectorias educativas de profesores de primaria en formación y la construc-
ción de saber pedagógico. Rev. De Estud. Y Exp. En Educ. 2019, 18, 117–133. hps://doi.org/10.21703/rexe.20191836suckel14.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 19 of 20
7. Reyes-Jedlicki, L.; Miranda, J.C.; Santa Cruz, G.E.; Cornejo Ch, R.; Núñez, R.M.; Arévalo, V.A.; Hidalgo, K.F. Subjetividades y
saberes docentes en el sistema educativo chileno: Un análisis desde las concepciones de formadores de profesores. Estud. Peda-
gógicos 2014, 40, 183–203. hps://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052014000200011.
8. Casas, C.P.; García, N.A. El saber pedagógico: Categoría que transforma y configura la acción docente en la FUCS, una reflexión
desde la especialización en docencia universitaria. Rev. Repert. De Med. Y Cirugía 2016, 25, 132–140. Available online: hps://re-
vistas.fucsalud.edu.co/index.php/repertorio/article/view/79 (accessed on 20 August 2024).
9. Darling-Hammond, L.; Wei, R.C.; Andree, A.; Richardson, N.; Orphanos, S. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A
Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad; National Staff Development Council: Oxford, UK, 2010.
10. Cochran-Smith, M.; Zeichner, K. Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education;
American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
11. Day, C.; Gu, Q. Profesores: Vidas Nuevas, Verdades Antiguas; Narcea: Madrid, España, 2012; 245p.
12. Shulman, L. Conocimiento y enseñanza: Fundamentos de la nueva reforma. Profr. Rev. De Currículum Y Form. Del Profr. 2005, 9,
1–30
13. Grossman, P.; Wilson, S.; Shulman, L. Profesores de sustancia: El conocimiento de la materia para la enseñanza. Profesorado. Rev.
De Curric. Y Form. Del Profr. 2005, 9, 1–24.
14. Ball, D.L.; Cohen, D.K. Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education.
In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice; Sykes, G., Darling-Hammond, L., Eds.; Jossey Bass: San
Francisco, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 3–32.
15. Darling-Hammond, L.; Bransford, J. Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and be Able to Do; Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005.
16. Meneses, G.; Balladares, J. Desafíos en la innovación curricular en la formación universitaria desde la mirada de los académicos.
Interciencia 2021, 47, 181–190.
17. Cruz Picón, P.; Salinas Peñaloza, W. Innovación curricular: Una mirada desde el enfoque de pensamiento crítico en la escuela.
Horiz. De La Cienc. 2022, 12, 103–117. hps://doi.org/10.26490/uncp.horizonteciencia.2022.23.1467.
18. Ruay, R.; Gonzalez, P.; Plaza, E. Como abordar la renovación curricular en la educación superior. Alteridad Rev. De Educ. 2016,
11,157–170. hps://doi.org/10.17163/alt.v11n2.2016.02.
19. Freire-Quintana, J.L.; Páez, M.C.; Núñez-Espinoza, M.; Narváez-Ríos, M.; Infante-Paredes, R. El diseño curricular, una her-
ramienta para el logro educativo. Rev. De Comun. De La SEECI 2018, 45, 75–86. hps://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2018.45.75-86.
20. Zabalza, M.; Zabalza, A. Innovación y Cambio en las Instituciones Educativas; Homo Sapiens Ediciones: Buenos Aires, Argentina,
2012. Available online: hps://psicheri.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/3-innovaci_n_y_cambio_en_las_instituci-
ones_educativas.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2024).
21. Morgado, J.C.; Campani, A. Inovar o currículo para melhorar a aprendizagem: O caso do curso de Medicina da Universidade
do Minho. Sensos-E 2018, 5, 3–17. hps://doi.org/10.34630/sensos-e.v5i2.2746.
22. Priestley, M.; Philippou, S.; Alvunger, D.; Soini, T. Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice within and Across Diverse
Contexts. In Curriculum Making: A Conceptual Framing; Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S., Soini, T., Eds.; Emerald Pub-
lishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2021; pp. 1–28. hps://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83867-735-020211002.
23. Margalef, L.; Arenas, A. Qué entendemos por innovación educativa? A propósito del desarrollo curricular. Perspect. Educ. Form.
De Profesores 2006, 47, 13–31.
24. Collazo, M. El cambio curricular, una oportunidad para repensar (nos). InterCambios 2016, 1, 36–43. Available online: hps://di-
alnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5436869.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2024).
25. Verdín-Zea, A.; Abundis-De León, F.; González-Basilio, S. Educational innovation and university academics: The challenges of
incorporating change into teaching and management practice. J. Hum. Resourc. 2020, 6, 1–9.
hps://doi.org/10.35429/jhrt.2020.17.6.1.9.
26. Díaz-Quezada, V.; Poblete-Letelier, Á.; Gallardo-González, M. Rediseño curricular por competencias: Experiencia en la for-
mación inicial universitaria en Chile. Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. Super. 2019, 10, 72–91.
hps://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2019.27.341.
27. Gonta, I.; Tripon, C. An analysis of curricular innovation in higher education: Challenges and a possible solution. J. Educ. Sci.
2020, 21, 87–100. Available online: hps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1282860.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2024).
28. Brunner, J.J. Medio siglo de transformaciones de la educación superior chilena: Un estado del arte. In La Educación Superior en
Chile. Transformación, Desarrollo y Crisis; En Bernasconi, A., Ed.; Ediciones UC: Santiago, Chile, 2015; Volume 3, pp. 21–107.
29. Guzmán, M.A.; Maureira, Ó.; Sánchez, A.; Vergara, A. Innovación curricular en la educación superior: ¿Cómo se gestionan las
políticas de innovación en los (re)diseños de las carreras de pregrado en Chile? Perfiles Educ. 2015, 37, 60–73.
30. Mineduc.cl. Available online: hps://www.mineduc.cl/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/02/PME-2018-Orientaciones-27-
feb.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2024)
31. Cnachile.cl. Available online: hps://www.cnachile.cl/noticias/SiteAssets/Paginas/Forms/AllItems/CyE%20CARRE-
RAS%20Y%20PROGRAMAS%20DE%20PEDAGOG%C3%8DA.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2024).
32. Taba, H. Currículum Development: Theory and Practice; Harcourt, Brace & World: New York, NY, USA, 1969.
33. Hill, D. Critical Teacher Education, New Labour, and the Global Project of Neoliberal Capital. Policy Futures Educ. 2007, 5, 204–
225.
34. Tyler, R.W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1949.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8966 20 of 20
35. Pérez, E.; Medrano, L. Análisis factorial exploratorio: Bases conceptuales y metodológicas. Rev. Argent. De Cienc. Del Comport.
(RACC) 2010, 2, 58–66.
36. Mavrou, I. Análisis factorial exploratorio: Cuestiones conceptuales y metodológicas. Rev. Nebrija De Lingüística Apl. A La Ense-
ñanza De Leng. 2015, 19, 71–80. hps://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael019283.
37. Villalobos-Abarca, M.A.; Herrera-Acuña, R.A.; Contreras-Véliz, J.L.; Varas-Contreras, M.P. Diseño curricular: Un esfuerzo de
diez años de una red de universidades en Chile. Form. Univ. 2021, 14, 25–36. hps://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062021000200025.
38. Vaillant, D.; Marcelo, C. Formación inicial del profesorado: Modelo actual y llaves para el cambio. Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic.
Y Cambio En Educ. 2021, 19, 55–69.
39. Lorenzo, J.A.; Muñoz, I.M.; Beas, M. Modelos de formación inicial del profesorado de Educación Secundaria en España desde
una perspectiva europea. Rev. Complut. De Educ. 2015, 26, 74. hps://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2015.v26.n3.44866.
40. Marzábal, A.; Moreira, P.; Delgado, V.; Moreno, J.; Contreras, R. Hacia la integración del conocimiento disciplinar y pedagógico:
Desarrollando el conocimiento pedagógico del contenido en la formación inicial de profesores de química. Estud. Pedagógicos
2016, 42, 243–260. hps://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052016000500014.
41. Gauthier, C.; Martineau, S.; Desbiens, J.; Malo, A.; Simard, D. Por una Teoría de Pedagogía: Pesquisas Contemporáneas Sobre o Saber
Docente; Editora Unijuí: Ijuí, Brazil, 1998.
42. Morelli, S. Lo político en el curriculum del siglo XXI. Rev. De La Esc. De Cienc. De La Educ. 2016, 12, 29–46.
43. Volante, P.; Bogolasky, F.; Derby, F.; Gutiérrez, G. Hacia una teoría de acción en gestión curricular: Estudio de caso de enseñanza
secundaria en matemática. Psicoperspectivas 2015, 14, 96–108. hps://doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol14-Issue2-fulltext-
445.
44. Icarte, G.; Labate, H. Metodología para la Revisión y Actualización de un Diseño Curricular de una Carrera Universitaria In-
corporando Conceptos de Aprendizaje Basado en Competencias. Form. Univ. 2016, 9, 03–16. hps://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-
50062016000200002.
45. Verdugo Peñaloza, A.; Tejada Fernández, J.; Navío Gámez, A. Pedagogical standards and their integration in the formative
projects of teaching programs. Estud. Pedagógicos 2021, 47, 133–155. hps://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052021000100133.
46. Harden-Díaz, N.; Pino-León, C.; Orrego-Molina, S.; Flores-Alvarado, S.; Esturillo-Pinet, J.; Flores-Castro, V.; Peralta-Campo-
sano, J. Diseño y validación de un instrumento de medición de la carga académica de estudiantes de carreras de la salud. Rev.
méd. Chile 2021, 149, 873–880. hps://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872021000600873.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
