Mixed-method study explores teacher beliefs and classroom practices in primary schools, indicating challenges in implementing curriculum reform.
Despite curriculum innovations that aim to teach English through current methodologies and approaches, research in English Language Teaching at primary schools has yet to be thoroughly explored. This study examined the impact of the Ecuadorian national curriculum on teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) through the lens of primary school teachers' beliefs. The participants in this study were 113 EFL teachers from primary schools. This study applied a mixed-method sequential explanatory approach. The quantitative data were collected using a questionnaire that associated teachers' beliefs and classroom practices regarding the new curriculum reform introduced by the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education. To collect qualitative data, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 teachers who participated voluntarily in this stage of the investigation, aiming to support the quantitative results by exploring their beliefs about instructional design, assessment, teaching materials, and classroom teaching practices. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the gathered data reveals that primary EFL teachers perceive the new curriculum reform as an innovative and updated document that emphasizes the development of 21st-century skills through its core principles. However, participants do not apply these principles effectively due to various factors that prevent them from utilizing current teaching methods. These factors included excessive students per class, insufficient technology integration, a lack of parental involvement, low experience of teaching English at primary schools, and limited quality resources for EFL primary classrooms. The study also offers practical implications for EFL teaching and provides suggestions for future educational endeavors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Llerena et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: