Survey data was analyzed using statistical software to generate frequencies, trends, and correlations. Key focus areas included the levels of agreement regarding the importance of early English education, perceived impacts of the curriculum gap on students’ transition to elementary school, recommendations for bridging the gap in early language instruction.
Interviews were analyzed thematically to gain insights into the perceptions of educators and policymakers on early English education. The findings from these qualitative data were triangulated with quantitative survey results to ensure reliability and validity.
RESULTS
In Ecuador, second language instruction officially begins in the second grade of basic education. This delay bypasses the critical period for language acquisition, typically identified as ages 3 to 6 when the brain is most receptive to learning new languages (Peralta, 2000). For instance, during this stage, children can easily internalize pronunciation patterns and phonological systems. In contrast, countries like Finland and Singapore introduce second languages during preschool, leveraging immersive and play-based methodologies that make language learning a natural part of a child’s early education. In Singapore, for example, children are exposed to both English and their mother tongue from as early as age 3, ensuring bilingual competence by the time they enter primary school. By intertwining language learning with daily activities and cultural immersion, Singapore sets an example of how early and consistent exposure can yield exceptional linguistic outcomes. By delaying language introduction, Ecuador misses the opportunity to harness this critical developmental window, potentially putting its students at a linguistic disadvantage in a globalized world.
Another key difference lies in the pedagogical strategies employed. Ecuador’s curriculum emphasizes holistic development and inclusivity but lacks explicit approaches tailored to second language acquisition (De Angelis, 2022). Teachers often rely on generalist methods, which, while beneficial for overall development, are not optimized for fostering bilingual skills. On the other hand, international best practices emphasize play-based learning and immersion programs. For example, in Canada’s French immersion schools, children as young as 4 are taught entirely in French, allowing them to develop fluency naturally through interaction, cooperation and daily activities (Yamo et al., 2024). Similarly, in Finland, play-based activities are used to introduce children to English, blending cognitive, social, and linguistic development seamlessly (Grover, 1978). These methodologies not only enhance language acquisition but also foster creativity and problem-solving skills. Incorporating such evidence-based practices into Ecuador’s preschool curriculum could significantly enhance its effectiveness.
Teacher training presents another area where Ecuador lags. Current training programs for preschool educators focus on general child development without specific components for teaching a second language. This lack of specialized preparation limits the ability of teachers to effectively incorporate language instruction into their classrooms. In contrast, countries with robust early education systems prioritize targeted training for language teachers. For instance, in Germany, educators undergo specialized programs that equip them with the tools and methodologies needed to teach foreign languages to young children (Nikolov & Mihaljevi, 2006). Additionally, these countries often mandate ongoing professional development, ensuring that teachers stay updated on the latest research and techniques. Without similar investments in teacher training, Ecuador risks perpetuating a cycle where even well-intentioned curriculum changes fail to yield the desired outcomes.
Survey results
A total of 78 respondents participated in the survey; they describe their perceptions of the early English teaching system, as well as their perceptions of the students they taught.
Figure 1. Do you consider the English curriculum useful for teachers?
Elaboration: The authors.
According to figure 1 and compared to the 21% who remain neutral in the survey, the graph shows that 79% of the respondents agree that the English curriculum is useful for teachers, while the other 21% disagree.
Figure 2. Do you think an English curriculum is necessary for preschoolers?
Elaboration: The authors.
According to the figure 2 shown above, you can see that a majority of respondents (62%) believe that a curriculum focused on English should be included in early childhood programs in order to meet the needs of the children.
Figure 3. Do you believe that learning English at a young age benefits children’s cognitive and academic development?
Elaboration: The authors.
The figure 3 demonstrates that 85% of respondents strongly agree that learning English at a young age adds benefits to cognitive and academic development in children, in contrast with the 5% of respondents who strongly disagree with this statement.
Figure 4. Are you aware of studies highlighting brain plasticity in young children as a factor for language learning?
Elaboration: The authors.
This figure 4 demonstrates that 67% of the respondents, being involved in English education, are aware of studies that highlight brain plasticity in language learning, 25% of the respondents are not sure if they have encountered this information and 8% of them deny having been in any way aware of this kind of studies.
Figure 5. How does the absence of English instruction at the preschool level affect students entering elementary school?
Elaboration: The authors.
In this figure 5, we can see that most respondents believe that the lack of early English instruction has at least some negative impacts on children (80%).
Figure 6. Do you think public school students face disadvantages compared to private school students due to this gap?
Elaboration: The authors.
This figure 6 demonstrates that there is a majority of respondents (59%) who see a disadvantage for public school students due to the lack of early English instruction, which can point to equity concerns.
Figure 7. Should the Ecuadorian government implement an English curriculum for preschool education?
Elaboration: The authors.
The figure 7 demonstrates that the majority of respondents (92%) show agreement reflecting strong support for government action to introduce an English curriculum for preschoolers.
Figure 8. Which methods would you recommend for teaching English to preschoolers?
Elaboration: The authors.
This figure 8 shows that there is a strong preference for interactive and engaging methods such as play-based learning and games, which demonstrate the importance of age-appropriate strategies for effective learning, as shown by this graphic.
Figure 9. What is the biggest challenge in implementing an English curriculum for preschool education?
Elaboration: The authors.
This figure 9 shows that 51% of respondents identify the shortage of trained teachers as the primary obstacle, followed by policy gaps (26%). Funding and parental support, while less significant, still require attention to ensure successful implementation.
DISCUSSION
This analysis drives us to the conclusion that it is necessary to have a valuable tool like an English curriculum. This is to improve the English level at early educational stages in Ecuador. However, this wasn't considered before the changes the government made in 2016. This investigation has demonstrated that there is a need that demands teachers' attention. The instruments applied and the data collected show 92% support in implementing this as a national policy like at the other levels. Despite the analysis obtained and the positive results, we must consider that the surveys reflect broad agreement. However, these opinions may not fully account for the logistical, economic, and pedagogical challenges in the Ecuadorian context. Key factors such as regional disparities, limited resources, teacher training, and broader educational priorities must be carefully considered before advancing such a curriculum (Quintana et al., 2023).
Based on the results of this research, the people who work in the education system, such as: English teachers, principals and school authorities agree with the implementation of an English curriculum for preschoolers, but there are particularities; for instance, the responses from the participants might not consider whether the educational system is truly prepared to offer quality foreign language teaching in preschool. This is due to budget constraints, teacher training, or infrastructure issues. Remember that in the public system, there is a critical situation and the money required for implementation may not be available, which will be insufficient to meet the desire of teachers’ participants in the surveys. Furthermore, the lack of adequate resources can hinder the development and execution of effective foreign language programs. As a result, despite the enthusiasm and willingness of educators, the quality of language instruction may suffer, ultimately impacting students' learning outcomes. That is why “in terms of the language teachers’ role, they are required to master not only the linguistic knowledge, but also to possess the necessary academic capacities to teach the contents to be learned by their pupils” (Reinoso, 2023).
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, our case study was well resolved. As the data presented indicate, this is a curriculum for teaching English language to young learners as well as tapping into children's second language acquisition skills. It has not been shown that teaching English at a very young age constitutes a critical phase where a person gains the most information due to plasticity as many authors concluded. There may be disadvantages to this research in not having dialogues with high-ranking authorities within the public education system; therefore, it would be necessary to obtain information from the principals and eventually fill this English proficiency gap. National authorities may read these findings and take them as a positive review to apply in the future.
FUNDING
Non- monetary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to all the participants directly involved in preschool education policy, from both private and public institutions, for their great contribution to this research.
REFERENCES CONSULTED
Alvira, R., & Gonzalez, Y. (2023). Content- and language-integrated learning-based strategies for the professional development of early childhood education pre-service teachers. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 23(1), 45-64. https://n9.cl/0s403
Ardila, A. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of bilingualism. Forma y Función, 25(2), 99-114. https://n9.cl/qr8yt
De Angelis, A. (2022). EF English Proficiency Index and English in Ecuador: Uncertain assumptions of the international ranking. Revista Andina de Educación, 5(2), e300, 1-10. https://n9.cl/kmlbn
Dzamesi, F., & Van Heerden, J. (2020). A professional development programme for implementing indigenous play-based pedagogy in kindergarten schools in Ghana. South African Journal of Education, 40(3), 1-11. https://n9.cl/0g3jh
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ferrer, E., & Poole, P. (2018). Creating a Teacher Development Program linked to curriculum renewal. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 249-266. https://n9.cl/kpknk
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Grover, W. (1978). The contributions of social learning to language acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3(1), 2-10. https://n9.cl/f3rgh
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevi, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 234-260. https://n9.cl/6jbmm
Peralta, J. (2000). Language and communication acquisition and development: a context-centered constructivist pragmatic view. Límite, (7), 54-66. https://n9.cl/eo77i
Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford University Press.
Quintana, L., Abata, F., & Carrera, D. (2023). Pre-service English teachers’ experiences in teaching practice. Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinonía, 8(15), 51-72. https://n9.cl/lvq3a
Reinoso, O. (2023). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to develop writing skills in English. Revista Chakiñan de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, (20), 196-209. https://n9.cl/bzt7t
Vera, K., Mitsuhiko, O., & Sonja, S. (2024). Does child-directed speech facilitate language development in all domains? A study space analysis of the existing evidence. Developmental Review, 72, 101121. https://n9.cl/k8e2y
Villagómez, M., & Llanos, D. (2020). Educational policies and curriculum in the 2020 health emergency. Valdivia, 46(3), 195-212. https://n9.cl/svoky
Yamo, P., Wongthanate, W., & Sitthitikul, P. (2024). Effects of cooperative learning on English achievement, retention, and motivation among low-level students in a rural province of Thailand. Language, Linguistics, Literature. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 30(4), 257-272. https://n9.cl/o4pou
©2025 por los autores. Este artículo es de acceso abierto y distribuido según los términos y condiciones de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)