The teaching of the cello in Spain: An analysis of the planning frameworks used for teaching in conservatories

A didactic program in music education structures the knowledge taught in a subject during a school year, which in instrumental studies is typically delivered through individualized or small-group instruction. The paper highlights limited teacher training in didactic planning for conservatory settings compared with secondary education teacher training, leading to variability and gaps in planning documents. The study notes shortcomings in program components (e.g., follow-up/recovery activities, resources, attention to diversity) across autonomous communities. Research questions focus on what is taught in first-year cello courses across Spanish conservatories and how their planning and content differ. The objectives are: (1) analyze the situation of cello teaching in Spain, (2) identify basic elements of cello teaching programs, and (3) compare and assess the suitability of didactic planning elements for teaching cello.

Background regulations decentralize curriculum and planning to Spain’s autonomous communities (Organic Law of Education 2/2006, Art. 48.1), resulting in diverse requirements for program elements (objectives, contents, methodology, evaluation criteria, follow-up/recovery, resources, attention to diversity). Examples: Andalucía (Order 24/06/2009) mandates objectives, content organization, methodology, and evaluation procedures/criteria; Castilla y León (Order EDU/1118/2008) requires objectives, content, assessment criteria, procedures, and grading criteria; Castilla-La Mancha (Order 02/07/2012) includes introduction, objectives, methodology, contents, evaluation criteria, complementary activities, continuous assessment procedures, and evaluation timing; Madrid (Decree 7/2014) calls for open, flexible planning with objectives and evaluation criteria; Murcia (Decree 58/2008) emphasizes adapting programs to student needs; Canary Islands (Order 16/03/2018) explicitly requires evaluation criteria, objectives, contents, promotion, methodology, resources, reinforcement, and complementary activities; Valencia (Decree 159/2007) stresses consistency with center projects; Asturias (Decree 57/2007) requires content, methodology, evaluation, recovery, and activities. A synthesis (Table 1) shows that evaluation criteria (N=6 regions), contents (N=5), objectives (N=5), follow-up/recovery (N=4), resources (N=1), and attention to diversity (N=0) are variably required. Prior cello pedagogy research is scarce. Etxepare (2011) outlines a cello pedagogy pathway; Botella & Fuster (2016) note programs tend to list methods and repertoire more than methodology and find no unified methodology in cello teaching; Bújez (2017) frames planning as within administrative limits yet adaptable; García (2015) reviews Murcia’s regulations; Lorenzo-Quiles et al. (2018) analyze initiation methods used in Andalusian conservatories; other studies address flute (Botella & Escorihuela, 2014) and piano repertoire (Lorenzo, 2009). Tables 2 and 3 summarize dimensions examined by prior work and whether planning was analyzed.

Design: Documentary analysis of didactic programs and regulatory texts. Following Vickery (1970), the study aimed to: (1) identify studies on teaching and planning procedures, (2) determine elements considered by cello teachers in planning, and (3) characterize available information on instrumental education planning. After document retrieval, an analytic-synthetic content assessment was performed (Mikhailov & Guiliarevskii, 1974; Pinto, 1992). The approach also followed Perelló (1998), reinterpreting the meaning and nature of documents. Sources: (a) Official regulatory documents affecting conservatory planning in Spain (N=6); (b) Cello teachers’ program documents (N=40). Data collection: Web pages of Spanish conservatories were searched to download published programs; management teams were contacted for unpublished ones. Official education portals were used for regulations. Documents in non-official languages were excluded from analysis. Sample: 40 conservatories across multiple autonomous communities (from >200 centers). Of available plans, only 21 were updated; 14 did not specify an academic year. Centers are listed and coded in Table 6. Analysis dimensions: Seven aspects were coded in programs: planning presence, objectives, content, recovery activities, follow-up activities, evaluation criteria/minimum evaluation criteria, educational resources, and measures for attention to diversity. Frequencies per item and program codes are reported in Tables 7–9.

- Strong heterogeneity across first-year cello programs; contents varied markedly by center and region. - Presence of planning components across 40 programs (Table 7): contents in 95% of plans; resources 85%; objectives 80%; evaluation criteria 80%; attention to diversity 50%; follow-up activities 45% (N=18 programs); recovery activities 25% (N=10 programs). - Most-taught contents in first-year cello (Table 8): bow strokes 72.5% (N=29); fingering 62.5% (N=25); scales 57.5% (N=23); pizzicatos 50% (N=19); string change 47.5% (N=19); open strings 42.5% (N=17); musical language signs 42.5% (N=17). Least-covered: anacrusis 5% (N=2); repeat signs 5% (N=2); agógica 15% (N=6); various other items below ~35%. - Didactic resources: 85% of programs list resources. Among the 33 programs with resources, 100% include Suzuki method Book 1 for cello; Sebastian Lee’s Practical Method appears in 22 programs; Feuillard’s “Method of the Young Cellist” in 12; Motatu’s “The Cello” in 9. Some include difficult materials (Dotzauer 113 Studies; Ševčík School of Bow Technique). - Objectives coverage (Table 9): 75% include adopting a natural and correct body position (N=30); 62.5% include knowing parts/characteristics of the cello (N=25); 57.5% include study habits (N=23); 52.5% include ear training (N=21); group practice 35% (N=14); bow management 37.5% (N=15); first position 32.5% (N=13); memory 30% (N=12); sight-reading 15% (N=6). Seven programs lack objectives altogether. - Evaluation criteria: absent in eight programs; where present, often general, not specific to first-year cello content/competences. - Diversity measures: present in about half; typically emphasize individualization and case-by-case adaptations via departments/school boards. - Follow-up and recovery: largely omitted; follow-up activities in 18 programs (45%); recovery activities in 10 programs (25%). Complementary activities sometimes include concerts/auditions, masterclasses, and ensemble participation; repeaters often receive targeted reinforcement time. - Regional alignment: In Andalusia, more coincidence in contents across conservatories was observed; regulations across communities differ, contributing to variability. Some programs appear to have layout errors and potential copying.

The study’s central question—what is taught in first-year cello across Spanish conservatories and how planning differs—is addressed by documenting substantial variation in program components, content coverage, resources, and evaluation practices. Despite clear regulatory frameworks requiring planning elements, implementation lacks uniformity, with frequent omissions (e.g., recovery, follow-up, diversity measures) and general rather than specific evaluation criteria. The most common objectives (body position, instrument knowledge, study habits) and contents (bow strokes, fingering, scales) indicate partial common ground, yet many essential skills are inconsistently addressed. This variability likely results from decentralized regulation and limited teacher training in planning for conservatory contexts. Consequences include inequities in student learning outcomes, complications when students transfer between centers, and misalignment with vocational entry expectations. The findings underscore the need for coordinated, standardized minimums for objectives, contents, and evaluation criteria, while preserving teacher autonomy to adapt to individual learners and local contexts.

Programs for first-year cello commonly include contents, resources, objectives, and evaluation criteria, but display significant heterogeneity in component inclusion and depth, with gaps in recovery, follow-up, and diversity measures. There is no nationwide unanimity in content scope or planning criteria, leading to unequal student preparation. Education authorities should establish minimum parameters for program design (objectives, contents, evaluation) and ensure oversight (e.g., inspectorate review) to reduce disparities. Enhanced, specialized teacher training in conservatory planning is needed, as current offerings focus on regulated general education rather than musical studies. Future research could develop and validate consensus-based frameworks for elementary string curricula, evaluate their impact on student outcomes and mobility, and explore best practices for individualized adaptation within standardized guidelines.

- Documentary analysis only; no classroom observations or learning outcome measures. - Sample limited to 40 conservatories out of more than 200; generalizability may be constrained. - Only 21 planning documents were updated; 14 lacked the academic year specification. - Exclusion of documents in non-official languages may omit relevant planning models. - Potential inconsistencies in plan availability and completeness (e.g., missing basic document elements, layout errors suggesting possible copying).