Teachers’ Perceptions Towards Textbook Suitability and Emergent Literacy in EFL Students

Lay Summary

La enseñanza de inglés como idioma extranjero se ha vuelto mas popular con el pasar de los años, pero no siempre es bien aplicada. En Chile se llevó a cabo un proyecto para enseñar inglés desde primer año de primaria, que incluyó la creación de libros de texto como apoyo a los profesores. Lamentablemente, estos libros de texto no consideraron la realidad del nivel de alfabetismo de los niños, y presentaron un fuerte foco en la lectoescritura. Los resultados de esta investigación muestran que los profesores que utilizaron estos libros no los consideraron de ayuda ya que no estaban acorde al nivel de alfabetismo de los estudiantes.

Introduction

Within a context where children from public schools historically exhibit low emergent literacy skills – numbers that declined almost by a 50% after the COVID-19 pandemic (Melo, 2022) – it can be expected that introducing literacy in a foreign language before or at the same time as literacy in the first language is acquired, can be quite problematic (Cameron, 2010; Clark, 2022; Moon, 2008; Nikolov & Timpe-Laughlin, 2021; Pinter, 2017; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2019). The issue of low emergent literacy skills in Chilean public schools is directly linked to factors such as socioeconomic status (Balladares & Kankarâs, 2020; Hannon et al, 2020). It is also important to note that this country has the largest average class size among the OECD’s countries, with a mean of 28 pupils (OECD, 2020). Class size has been signaled as a negative impact when learning literacy, according to previous research (Guardia & Mendiveo, 2016). Finally, as formerly mentioned, the lack of properly trained staff is a considerable element that has been extensively discussed worldwide in the literature (Inostroza, 2015; Barahona, 2016; Garton et., al. 2011).

1. Emergent literacy and foreign language learning

For the purposes of this study, literacy will be regarded as the ability to read and write (Clark, 2022), while emergent literacy will refer to the knowledge of letters/alphabet (the process previous to reading and writing).

Teachers must be aware of the children’s capacities, both physical and cognitive. Knowledge about the children’s abilities in their native language allows teachers to set realistic goals (Pinter, 2017). As previously mentioned in this paper, during their first year of primary school, children are still learning the alphabet; they are not able to read or write more than their names, and they are just being taught the Spanish grapheme-phoneme correspondence of some letters. Expecting them to engage in writing or reading English would exceed their current developmental capabilities (Moon, 2008; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2019). As Cameron (2010) mentions, having young learners copy words in their notebooks would be physically very demanding: Focusing on doing the correct traces on the paper would leave no time to remember the words. Moreover, a study carried out in 2015 (Ijalba & Obler) found that first language cognitive processes, related to reading, not only influence but also constrain the cognitive processes for reading in a foreign language. Herrera et al., (2022) mentions that, having sufficient literacy skills in the first language promotes literacy learning in a foreign language.

Moon (2008) mentions the problem to introduce literacy in the foreign language before or at the same time that the children acquire their first language literacy, highlighting how it has an effect over the general agreement in both EFL and ESL contexts: Ideally, children should have a firm basis of the second language oral skills (Escamilla et al., 2022); along with a foundation in their first language literacy, before they begin with second language literacy (ibid). Singleton and Pfenninger (2019) refer to the difficulties faced by children who first learned literacy skills in a foreign language when transferring them to their first language. In contrast, children who first gained the skills in their mother tongue, can easily transfer them to the foreign language. Along those lines, Pinter (2017) states that, when children start learning another language, it is not necessary for them to have fully developed literacy skills. This is confirmed by the Spanish Language section of the National Curriculum for Year 1 (Ministerio de Educacion, 2018) states that having a good command of the mother tongue is the basis of a good education and the key to success at school. Furthermore, the grapheme-to-morpheme correspondence in Spanish is much more transparent, compared to English (Ijalba & Obler, 2015), which contributes to the challenge of acquiring literacy skills in both languages simultaneously. The previously mentioned establishes the importance of having developed literacy in the first language before introducing it in a foreign language (Cameron, 2010; Clark, 2022; Moon, 2008; Nikolov & Timpe-Laughlin, 2021; Pinter, 2017; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2019).

Crucial for foreign language teaching are school books because their quality is extremely important (Carabantes, 2020; Nordlun, 2016) so the books' focus, e.g. on literacy, has a significant influence on how languages are actually taught in practice, particularly in the context previously described, where having useful, quality materials, is vital (Copland & Garton, 2014; Rixon, 2013). However, the textbooks that the government had issued for Year 1 tended to be highly focused on literacy, and presented many activities that were too challenging for children, this will be discussed in more depth in the results part of the paper. Regardless of the literacy issue, task difficulty is an area of particular interest when teaching and assessing young learners (Nikolov & Timpe-Laughlin, 2021): children need activities that are challenging but achievable (Cameron, 2010; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Nikolov & Timpe-Laughlin, 2021).

In consideration of the foregoing, this study reviews relevant research on the fields of first and second language literacy, advocating that when children have not yet developed literacy skills in their first language, they should not be exposed to tasks that demand literacy in a foreign language (Cameron, 2010; Clark, 2022; Moon, 2008; Nikolov & Timpe-Laughlin, 2021; Pinter, 2017; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2019). Although counterarguments have been offered by studies such as Dlugosz (2000), the profound differences between the contexts in which such arguments were made, suggest the results are unlikely to be replicable in this country.

2. Methodology

This mixed methods study highlights two key findings: the importance of developing literacy skills in the first language before learning a foreign language, and the observation that government-issued textbooks place a strong emphasis on literacy. Exploring teachers’ perception of the suitability of two English textbooks and one activity book for Year 1, used in public schools in 2017 (Kniveton et., al., 2016) and 2022 (Dunne & Newton, 2021a; Dunne & Newton, 2021b) is the main aim of this mixed methods study. In order to achieve this, an anonymous online survey (APPENDIX A) was created in Google Forms; it was answered by 48 Chilean teachers of English who had taught using the aforementioned textbooks between 2017 and 2023. The survey was posted in two Facebook groups of teachers of English in Chile. Previous to this, the survey was piloted by three teachers who met the criteria. Ultimately, 52 people answered the survey, but only 48 met the criteria. The survey was processed automatically by Google Forms, and further analyzed using spreadsheets and SPSS; open-ended questions were manually categorized and separated into themes: Knowledge of the alphabet/names (questions 6, 7, 9, 10), general literacy (questions 8, 11, 12), and book appropriateness (questions 13-16).

A follow-up interview was applied to 22 of the participants in order to clarify some answers and to delve deeper into the more relevant aspects. Finally, the author of this study also provides a brief analysis of the characteristics of the activities in each textbook, based on relevant literature (Breen, 1987; Tomlinson, 2013; McDonough, 2012; McGrath, 2016). The detailed analysis can be found on APPENDIX B.

3. Findings

This survey found that 65% of the participants believe the textbooks are not suitable for the context, which confirms the results of the textbook analysis. 83% of the teachers surveyed claimed to create or adapt their own materials to improve their lessons, a finding that supports previous research in the context (Carabantes, 2020). The survey also showed that after the pandemic, there was a decline in children's literacy and emergent literacy when starting first grade: the number of students who were not able to write their names doubled, and the number of students who do not know the alphabet or cannot read or write grew by almost 20%, those findings are in accord with those of recent research on this topic (Melo, 2022).

The survey also showed that before the pandemic, more than half of the teachers (60%) had students who did not know the alphabet, or were not able to read or write. One third of their students were not even able to write their own names. After the pandemic, there was a decline in children's literacy when starting first grade: The number of students who were not able to write their names doubled, and the number of students who do not know the alphabet or cannot read or write grew by almost 20%. This is the reality that teachers face when teaching English in Year 1 which may explain why, in this context, introducing literacy in a foreign language can be challenging or even counterproductive, according to most participants: In fact, 8 out of 10 teachers surveyed believe the textbooks are not appropriate for the context due to the strong literacy focus. It is important to mention that the survey defined literacy as “the ability to read and write”.

A higher-than-expected number of participants (35%) believed that teaching literacy in English at the same time students are learning it in Spanish is favorable. However, it is very interesting to observe that 42.5% of these teachers also consider the textbook not appropriate, which is somehow contradictory, considering all the literacy-related tasks that it provides. This discrepancy is further discussed in the interview results.

More than half of the participants believe that teaching literacy in both the first language and a foreign language simultaneously is detrimental to children; those results are consistent with previous research in the topic (Cameron, 2010; Clark, 2022; Moon, 2008; Pinter, 2017; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2019).

Regarding the interview, slightly over a third of the teachers (36%) expressed that teaching literacy in the first language at the same time as in a foreign language was not harmful, claiming that both languages complemented each other. Interestingly, two of these teachers said that teaching literacies in both languages at the same time “didn’t get in the way as long as you don’t ask students to read or write” which raised a red flag about the level of understanding of the question by these teachers. Although during the interview participants were asked to clarify this discrepancy, at first, the teachers insisted in advocating for the fact that teaching both literacies at the same time was harmless, given that students were not asked to read or write in English. These participants seemed to be unaware of the discrepancies in their answer, however, they later recognized the issue, and expressed their opposition to teaching literacy in a foreign language before it was established in the first language.

More contradictory answers were given by other participants that considered the books to be very appropriate, despite their strong literacy focus, but then added comments such as “to learn words in English, children should already know the Spanish alphabet”, “teaching both literacies at the same time gets in the way of learning English, I prefer to focus on oral activities” or “I don’t include reading or writing in this level because it is too difficult for the children”. Despite expressing a preference for oral skills and the avoidance of literacy at this level, as well as recognizing the importance of first language literacy, these participants consider appropriate a textbook that prioritizes literacy, minimizes oral skills, and expects faster progress in foreign language literacy compared to first language literacy. When further inquired about this, two of the teachers mentioned they rarely use the textbook, preferring their own materials, adding that they considered the textbook to be good because it “seemed to have many activities”, but that they, in fact, had never examined it in detail. The other teacher previously referred to, later acknowledged that the textbook was not appropriate for the level, and recognized it conflicted with her/his teaching beliefs.

From the participants who considered that literacy in English should be introduced after literacy in Spanish, the vast majority (87%) claimed that trying to read or write was highly difficult for the students and it hindered their English learning; some claimed students “took a long time only writing their names”, which is consistent with the literature reviewed in this article (Cameron, 2010; Clark, 2022; Moon, 2008; Pinter, 2017; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2019). Accordingly, most of these participants expressed focusing on spoken activities, so the children can learn English orally first “since they don’t know how to read or write”, claimed some participants. Others referred specifically to the fact that teaching both literacies at the same time hindered English learning, pointing out that “it interferes, particularly if writing is involved” or “sometimes children get confused with both languages”, for example.

All the teachers quoted in the previous paragraph considered the textbooks to be unsuitable for children at this level. Nine participants claimed that not only the textbooks relied too much on literacy, but the activities were beyond the students’ cognitive abilities (they considered them excessively difficult for the level and skills of the students).

4. Limitations

This small-scale study focused only on emergent literacy in Year 1, and the suitability of the first-year English textbooks. Hence, there are limitations. This study focused only on the Chilean public schools’ context; results would likely be different in private schools, as literature suggests (Balladares & Kankarâs, 2020; Hannon et al, 2020). This research would benefit from a larger sample and a stronger focus on interviews, in order to inquire deeper about teachers’ perception of the textbooks. Only the textbooks provided by the Ministry of Education were considered, and any extra materials created by teachers were excluded.

5. Conclusion

Thus far, a number of scholars have highlighted the benefits of introducing foreign language literacy after acquiring it in the first language. This is particularly relevant in a context like Chilean’s public schools, because students who attend public schools usually come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, which, as research suggests, correlates with their literacy skills in their first language. Notwithstanding, none of the points previously mentioned were considered by the government when commissioning the English textbooks. National context, as well as teacher's input, should always be at the core of any public education policy, especially when commissioning textbooks, if we consider how much teachers rely on them. By failing to consider the background in which the textbooks will be used, little advantage could be taken from “the younger the better” motto; a phrase often spread as the “magical recipe” for teaching English to young learners. Acknowledgement of the work it conveys, consideration of contextual factors, and the necessity of materials, infrastructure, and teacher training, must be the very basis on which educational policies regarding teaching English as a foreign language to young learners should be built in order to succeed.

Additional Information

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Statement of Data Availability

The data, codes and materials that support the findings of this study are available on request fromthe corresponding author.

References

Balladares, J., & Kankarâs, M. (2020). Attendance in Early Childhood Education and Care Programmes and Academic Proficiencies at Age 15. OECD Education Working Paper, 214. https://doi.org/10.1787/f16c7ae5-en

Barahona, M. (2016). Challenges and accomplishments of ELT at primary level in Chile: towards the aspiration of becoming a bilingual country. Education policy analysis archives. 24(82), 1-25. http://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2448

Breen, M. (1987). Which materials?: A consumer's and designer's guide. In Sheldon, L. (ed). ELT Textbooks and materials: problems in evaluation and development. (pp.13-2). Modern English Publications

Cameron, L. (2010). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge University Press.

Clark, S. (2022). The role of L1 literacy in L2 reading development. [Master’s dissertation, University State of Minnesota].  Dissertations, Theses, and Projects. 709. https://red.mnstate.edu/thesis/709

Carabantes, L. (2020). Language teaching materials and teacher education in Chile: An activity-theoretical study of the learning of materials design. [Doctoral dissertation, University College London] UCL Discovery. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10098566

Copland, F., & Garton, S. (2014). Key themes and future directions in teaching English to young learners: Introduction to the special Issue. ELT Journal, 68(3), 223–230. http://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu030

Dlugosz, D., W. (2000). Rethinking the role of reading in teaching a foreign language to young learners. ELT Journal. 54(3), 284-290. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.3.284

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd edition). Pearson.

Dunne, B., & Newton, R. (2021a). Get ready with English 1 (3rd edition). Student’s book. Ministry Of Education. Santillana

Dunne, B., & Newton, R. (2021b). Get ready with English 1 (3rd edition). Activity book. Ministry Of Education. Santillana

Escamilla, K., Olsen, L., & Slavick, J. (2022). Toward Comprehensive Effective Literacy Policy and Instruction for English Learner/Emergent Bilingual Students. National Committee on effective literacy.

Garton, S., Copland, F., & Burns, A. (Eds.). (2011). Investigating global practices in teaching English to young learners. Birmingham: Aston University

Guardia, P., & Mendiveo, S. (2016) . Evaluación de eficacia de una intervención preescolar Para promover lenguaje y alfabetización inicial en niños de sectores deprivados socioculturalmente. FONIDE research report. Available at: https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/handle/20.500.12365/18762 (Accessed: 03 August 2023)

Hannon, P., Nutbrown, C., & Morgan, A. (2020). Effects of extending disadvantaged families’ teaching of emergent literacy. Research Papers in Education, 35(3), 310-336. http://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1568531

Herrera, S., Martinez, M., Olsen, L., & Soltero, S. (2022). Early Literacy Development and Instruction for Dual Language Learners in Early Childhood Education. National Committee for Effective Literacy for Emergent Bilingual Students. https://multilingualliteracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NCEL_ECE_White_Paper.pdf

Ijalba, E., & Obler, L. (2015). First language grapheme-phoneme transparency effects in adult second language learning. Reading in a Foreign Language. 27(1), 47–70. http://doi.org/10125/66700

Inostroza, M., J. (2015). Examining challenges and complexities in the Chilean young learner classroom: A case of teaching English as a foreign language. [Doctoral thesis, University of Sheffield]. Connecting REpositories. https://core.ac.uk/reader/42605200

Kniveton, J., Llanas, A., & Alvarado, L. (2016). Bounce in Chile 1 (re-printed). Student´s book. Ministry of Education. Ediciones Cal y Canto Ltda.

McDonough, J. (2012). Materials and methods in ELT: a teacher’s guide. (3rd ed.). Blackwell.

McGrath, I. (2016). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University press.

Medina, L., Valdivia, A., Gaete, R., & Galdames, V. (2015). ¿Cómo enseñan a leer los Profesores de 1° y 2°básico en un contexto de evaluación de desempeño docente en Chile?. Estudios pedagógicos. 41(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052015000100011

Melo, C. (2022). Efecto de la pandemia en las habilidades de lenguaje y lectura de estudiantes de Kinder a 4to básico. Centro de investigación e innovación en lectura. Project report. Available at: https://www.uandes.cl/ciil/recursos-y-publicaciones/ (Accessed: 11 June 2023 Ministerio de Educación. (2018). Bases curriculares. Primero a sexto básico. Unidad de curriculum y evaluación.

Ministerio de Educación. (2014). National English Strategy 2014 – 2030. Government of President Sebastián Piñera.

Mishan, F., & Timmis, I. (2015). Materials development for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press.

Moon, J. (2008). L2 Children and writing: a neglected skill? ELT Journal. 62(4), 398-400. Morales, L., & Pulido-Cortés, O. (2023). Alfabetización inicial: travesías al mundo de la lectura y la escritura . Praxis & Saber, 14(37), https://doi.org/10.19053/22160159.v14.n37.2023.16292

Nikolov, M., & Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2021). Assessing young learners’ foreign language abilities. Language Teaching, 54(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000294

Nordlund, M. (2016). EFL textbooks for young learners: a comparative analysis of vocabulary, Education Inquiry, 7(1), 47-68. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.27764

OECD. (2020). Student-teacher ratio and average class size. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=RGRADSTY#

Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching Young Language Learners. (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press.

Rixon, S. (2013). British council survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide. British council.

Singleton, D., & Pfenninger, S.  (2019). The age debate: A critical overview. . In Garton, S. & Copland, F. (eds,) (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Teaching English to Young Learners (pp. 30-43). Rouledge.

Toledo-Sandoval, F. (2020). Local culture and locally produced ELT textbooks: How do Teachers bridge the gap? System. 95(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102362.

Tomlinson, B. (2013). Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed.). Continuum.

Universidad de Chile. (2011). Estudio sobre comportamiento lector a nivel nacional. Centro microdatos. http://microdatos.cl

Appendix

APPENDIX A - Survey

Literacy in first year primary

This survey is aimed at teachers that have previously worked with (since 2017), or are currently working in first year primary with the English books from the Ministry of Education, in public schools.

The objective of this questionnaire is to enquire about literacy skills (the ability to read and write) in children of first year primary in public schools.

Your answers are completely anonymous and will only be used for this small study. The survey takes about 5 minutes. You can contact me for further information at my personal email: ramirez.moya.erika@gmail.com

Thank you for your participation.

Erika Ramirez, English teacher.

.

Click accept to participate.

Section 2 - General Information

This section gathers general information about your profile to ensure you meet our criteria. This information will help us conduct a more in-depth analysis of the data.

Figure 1.

Section 3 - About literacy in children from first grade – open questions

Figure 2.

Section 4 - Personal Perception – open questions

Figure 3.

APPENDIX B

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Review

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2025.V6.N2.ID786.R

Editorial Decision

EDITOR 1: Tan Arda Gedik

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1429-9675

AFFILIATION: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Baviera, Alemanha.

-

EDITOR 2: Leonarda Prela

ORCID: https://orcid.org/

AFFILIATION: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Baviera, Alemanha.

-

EDITOR 3: Vania De la Garza

ORCID: https://orcid.org/

AFFILIATION: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Baviera, Alemanha.

-

DECISION LETTER: The manuscript Teachers’ Perceptions of Textbook Suitability and Emergent Literacy in EFL Students by Erika Ramirez explores the challenges faced by Chilean public-school students in acquiring English literacy while still developing literacy in their first language (L1). The study critiques the government-issued textbooks, which assume prior literacy skills that most students lack, making L2 literacy acquisition cognitively demanding and pedagogically ineffective. Drawing on a survey of teachers, the study highlights widespread concerns about the suitability of these textbooks, with many educators adapting or creating their own materials to compensate for the gaps. This research aligns closely with the special issue Beyond Letters: Perspectives on the Effects of Illiteracy from Linguistics and Beyond, as it provides empirical evidence on how literacy acquisition (or its absence) affects linguistic competence, syntax, and lexicogrammar. The findings demonstrate that individual differences in literacy development significantly impact students’ ability to acquire L2 syntax, supporting broader research on literacy’s role in shaping mental representations of linguistic structures. Moreover, the study highlights the constraints of premature L2 literacy instruction, as cognitive processes for reading in an L1 influence and sometimes hinder literacy acquisition in an L2. Beyond theoretical implications, the manuscript contributes to discussions on effective literacy teaching methods, emphasizing the need for oral language development before introducing L2 literacy and the importance of context-sensitive educational materials. The study also challenges the assumption that early exposure to L2 literacy is universally beneficial, providing a counterpoint to WEIRD-based literacy models and advocating for pedagogical approaches better suited to low-literacy populations. Ultimately, the research raises critical questions about how literacy acquisition influences linguistic knowledge and offers valuable insights for improving literacy instruction in multilingual and low-literate educational settings.

Rounds of Review

REVIEWER 1: Veronika Stampfer

ORCID: https://orcid.org/

AFFILIATION: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Baviera, Alemanha.

-

REVIEWER 2: Fernanda Rosa da Silva

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-8805

AFFILIATION: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais, Brasil.

-

ROUND 1

REVIEWER 1

2024-08-21 | 08:18 AM

in the following you find the evaluation statement, the public review and the recommendations for the author:

The author of this paper argues that English schoolbooks for Chilean first-grade students are opposed by public school teachers because of their focus on literacy. An online survey and follow-up interviews confirm that the books are not particularly popular among the teachers; however, the connection to literacy as the reason for this is not entirely clear.

The strength of the paper is that the topic is relevant not only for academic purposes but also beneficial for application in schools. This is because, in order to ensure good quality of teaching, it is vital to have schoolbooks evaluated not only by officials and general experts in the field but also by the teachers who are supposed to use them. On the other hand, it is important to take into account current developments that might require changes to the way certain subjects are taught. The author addresses this by, first, explaining how English as a foreign language is now introduced earlier in Chilean schools despite a lack of trained staff. Second, the author considers how literacy levels in students' first language worsened due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which makes simultaneous literacy training in a foreign language an even bigger challenge for students.

Moreover, it is sufficiently explained and supported with previous studies that students are likely to struggle to acquire literacy skills in a language in which they are not orally proficient, especially before having mastered literacy in their mother tongue. Therefore, it makes sense to assume that textbooks focusing on literacy are not suitable for first grade students.

One shortcoming of the paper is that the teachers were not asked beforehand if they had actually worked with the books in class, which would be necessary to make an informed evaluation of the books (p.7). They were also not asked whether they do not use those books their focus on literacy. Additionally, it was not ensured that every teacher understood what literacy actually is, as some gave contradictory answers that suggest they have different definitions of the term “literacy” (pp. 6-7). While this misunderstanding could be resolved in some cases, it cannot be ensured that the teachers who did not give contradictory answers understood the term correctly, especially the 26 participants who simply answered the questionnaire without participating in a follow-up interview.

Therefore, it is not guaranteed that the teachers disliked the textbooks because of the focus on literacy. This conclusion can also be drawn from the fact that the questions about suitability (p.5) and literacy (p.6) seem to have been asked independently of each other. Only in the interviews did some of the teachers report connecting their opposition towards the textbooks to the difficulty level of the tasks, which is rooted, among other factors, in the focus on literacy (p.7). This means that teachers could also dislike the textbooks because of, for example, the content of the texts, the number and presentation of the activities, the design of the book, or simply because they prefer working with their own materials regardless of the quality of the textbooks.

Finally, a stronger focus could have been placed on differentiating between the English teachers who are not used to teaching first grade and the primary teachers who have not taught English before, as this point is raised at the beginning of the paper and their textbook preferences and the respective reasons for them might vary.

Recommendations:

In the paper, brief analyses of activities included in the books are mentioned, as well as the "themes" into which the aspects raised by teachers in the open questions section of the survey and in the interviews are categorized. While both the themes and the analyses seem interesting and relevant to the research question, neither the themes nor the questions asked—along with the differences between the survey and interview questions—or the analyses of the activities in the books are explained in detail anywhere in the paper. Not having this information makes it difficult to fully assess the exact outcomes of the survey and the interviews. It would be preferable to include these elements in the main text, or, in the case of the survey, attach it in an appendix rather than providing it only upon request.

Additionally, providing the definitions of literacy given to the teachers would be helpful, as well as clearly delineating the terms "emergent literacy" and "literacy" and explaining the differences between acquiring basic literacy skills, such as learning the alphabet, and learning to read and write in a foreign language.

Furthermore, it is unclear when Chile began teaching children English at an early age. This is relevant because if English instruction previously began after primary school, the challenges English teachers face when teaching first grade are likely more significant than if English instruction had previously started in second grade.

I hope the comments and suggestions are helpful. Otherwise, I have attached a file with the commented manuscript with more detailed suggestions. I am at your disposal for any questions you may have.

Thank you very much!

-

REVIEWER 2

2024-08-21 | 03:06 PM

Recomendação: Aceitar