Sustainable Early English Language Education: Exploring the Content Knowledge of Six Chinese Early Childhood Education Teachers Who Teach English as a Foreign Language

Abstract

The importance of content knowledge (CK) for effective teaching and student learning is widely recognized. However, there is still a lack of detailed understanding of the CK held by early childhood education (ECE) teachers, particularly those teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). To fill this gap, our study utilized a qualitative approach, specifically stimulated recall classroom observation, to examine the various categories and subcategories of CK among Chinese EFL teachers in kindergartens. Six EFL teachers participated, two with English backgrounds and four with ECE backgrounds. Our findings highlight the multifaceted nature of CK in ECE EFL teaching, identifying three categories: knowledge of first language (L1) acquisition, knowledge of second language (L2) acquisition, and knowledge of linguistics. Notably, there were significant differences between the teachers with English and ECE majors, particularly in the most frequently mentioned CK subcategory and in how L1 is learned. This study not only illuminates these differences but also provides valuable insights for future research and practical applications in ECE EFL teacher education.

1. Introduction

Over recent decades, the study of teacher knowledge has garnered increasing attention. Content knowledge (CK) is a key type of teacher knowledge essential to the teaching profession [1,2,3]. It refers to knowledge of the specific subject and is related to the content teachers are required to teach, including knowledge of the subject and its organizing structures [3,4]. Shulman, in particular, emphasized that knowing a subject for teaching transcends mere acquaintance with its facts and concepts [5]. Teachers are also required to grasp the subject’s organizing principles and structures alongside the rules for determining what is legitimate to do and say within the field.

Efforts to categorize CK across various disciplines and educational levels have been at the forefront of educational research, aiming to deepen our understanding of teachers and their instructional methods. Much of this research has concentrated on the CK of mathematics and science teachers [1,2]. For instance, investigations into mathematical CK have revealed that it includes knowledge in areas such as numbers, geometry, algebra, and data analysis [6]. Similarly, research on biology teachers has examined their CK, exploring their understanding of biological concepts and principles, the mechanisms of biological processes, and the application of these concepts to natural phenomena in everyday life [7].

Research indicates that teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) presents unique challenges distinct from other subjects, as the medium of instruction is identical to the content being taught. This overlap demands the use of oral interaction-heavy teaching methodologies and requires teachers to possess deep insights into both linguistic elements and cultural subtleties [8,9]. Despite these complexities, the exploration of CK in EFL teaching has not received as much attention as in mathematics and science education, where challenges are often tied to the complexities of disciplinary knowledge. In contrast, the EFL field has focused more on epistemological and pedagogical issues without adequately addressing the essential role of CK [2]. This oversight raises a critical question about the significance of CK in the professional knowledge of EFL teachers. There is a pressing need for further empirical research to fully assess the importance of CK for EFL teachers.

Lafayette developed a comprehensive theoretical framework to dissect the CK of EFL teachers, identifying three pivotal categories: language proficiency, cultural and civilizational knowledge, and language analysis [10]. He posited that mastering the language is paramount for effective teaching. Additionally, he highlighted the importance of teachers’ familiarity with the culture associated with the language they teach. This awareness enables teachers to guide students in recognizing their own cultural identities. In the domain of language analysis, Lafayette emphasized the necessity for teachers to be well-versed in linguistic structures and applied linguistics [10].

For EFL teachers of early childhood education (ECE), CK should encompass specific aspects unique to this field. Considering that young learners are still developing their first language (L1), an understanding of both L1 and second language (L2) acquisition theories and principles is critical for effective instruction. The influence of caregivers in both L1 and L2 acquisition during early childhood is also undeniable [11,12]. Children actively develop their language skills through interactions with parents, teachers, and peers, often mirroring the verbal and non-verbal language cues of these figures and engaging in meaning negotiation [13]. Furthermore, given the emphasis on oral language instruction for young learners, extensive knowledge of English phonetics is deemed essential for teaching [14].

However, there is very limited empirical work devoted to this area. A notable exception is a study conducted by Kim, which provides a rare empirical investigation into the field [15]. Leveraging Lafayette’s theoretical framework, Kim surveyed 336 ECE EFL teachers in Korea using a teacher knowledge questionnaire [10,15]. The research findings revealed that CK encompasses three main categories: knowledge of L1 and L2 acquisition, including theories of how L1 and L2 are learned by children, the role of caretakers in the acquisition processes, and the children’s roles in learning these languages; linguistics knowledge, covering areas such as phonology, syntax, morphology, discourse, pragmatics and sociolinguistics; and proficiency in the target language, referring to both general and classroom-specific language skills.

Kim’s study challenges Shulman’s model by revealing the multidimensional nature of CK in ECE EFL teaching, diverging from the idea of CK as a singular construct [3,15]. It calls for further research to precisely delineate and refine these CK categories. To address this research gap, our study adopts a qualitative approach using stimulated recall classroom observations. This method allows us to investigate the relevance and application of these CK categories among Chinese ECE EFL teachers, providing deeper insights into their knowledge and instructional practices.

In addition, it is crucial to understand the factors that shape the CK of ECE EFL teachers [16]. A pivotal determinant of ECE EFL teacher knowledge appears to be the teacher’s academic background, particularly whether it is in English education. This distinction becomes evident in comparative research between specialist teachers who hold degrees in English and generalist teachers whose academic backgrounds lie outside of English education within the ECE EFL teaching context.

Enever pointed out that in several European countries, generalist teachers are often tasked with teaching foreign languages [17]. Numerous studies have outlined the differences between specialist and generalist teachers in ECE EFL settings. Generalist teachers possess a deep understanding of preschool pedagogy, establish strong relational bonds with children that enhance motivation and learning, integrate the foreign language throughout classroom activities, and maintain a comprehensive perspective on children’s overall learning journey. However, they often fall short in English oral proficiency and lack specific knowledge of language teaching methods for children, as well as skills in lesson planning, selecting and adapting materials, correcting errors, and providing feedback [17,18].

Given the significant variation in how ECE English instruction is approached, this study also sought to conduct a comparative analysis of generalist (with a background in ECE) and specialist teachers (with a background in English), examining how different categories and subcategories of CK manifest in each group.

1.1. Context of This Study

In China, there is a growing trend to incorporate early English language instruction into kindergarten programs, with the amount of teaching time varying widely across different curricula. Some kindergartens offer less than two hours per week, while others offer a bilingual setting where instruction time is equally divided between Chinese and English, accounting for 50% each [19]. Moreover, the lack of a national English language curriculum framework leads to inconsistent teaching practices across kindergartens.

In the Asia Pacific region, key issues in early childhood English education center around teacher qualifications and pedagogical methods [20]. In Korea, Kim identified three types of kindergarten English teachers [15]. General classroom teachers, while well-acquainted with the curriculum and capable of integrating English into their teaching, often lack sufficient English proficiency to conduct full lessons. Language teachers, while proficient in English, may not have the skills to implement age-appropriate pedagogies. Additionally, classroom teachers with limited English proficiency often co-teach with native speakers, who may lack formal teaching qualifications.

Similarly, Tang identified two prevalent types of kindergarten English teachers in China [21]. The first type, regular teachers, typically have degrees in ECE and possess strong competencies in ECE curricula and child psychology but often lack sufficient English proficiency. The second type, specialists, are specifically hired to teach English to kindergarteners; these teachers usually have strong English backgrounds but have limited knowledge and skills in ECE principles.

Both types of teachers face challenges in effectively meeting the developmental needs of young learners. The teaching content, methodologies, and processes they employ are not adequately tailored to the specific requirements of kindergarteners, resulting in a significant mismatch between teaching approaches and the developmental stages of the children [21]. This mismatch highlights the need for a more integrated approach that combines expertise in English language teaching with early childhood education principles to enhance the effectiveness of early childhood English instruction in China.

1.2. Research Questions

Given the increasing integration of early English language instruction in Chinese kindergartens, our study adopted a qualitative methodology to examine the CK of ECE EFL teachers in these settings and had a two-fold objective: (1) to identify the categories and subcategories of CK in ECE EFL teachers and (2) to compare two groups of teachers, those with a background in English and those with a background in ECE, to explore potential differences in their CK. The research focused on addressing the following questions:

• What CK categories and subcategories are evident in the classroom practices of ECE EFL teachers in China?
• Are there differences in these CK categories and subcategories between teachers who majored in English and those who majored in ECE?

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

This study utilized purposive sampling to select six representative ECE EFL teachers from four first-level kindergartens (A, B, C, and D) accredited by local educational authorities. These kindergartens have been offering English instruction for several years, with well-developed and consistent English curricula and teaching staff, and all are located in capital or prefecture-level cities. The selection process was influenced by the classification of ECE EFL teachers into two categories identified by Chinese scholars: those with majors in ECE and those with majors in English [21]. Further considerations in the sampling process included recommendations from kindergarten principals and the willingness of the English teachers to participate. Consent was obtained from all participants before any classroom observations. Ultimately, six female teachers were selected: two with English majors and four with ECE majors. Four teachers were from private kindergartens, and two were from a university-affiliated kindergarten. Detailed profiles of these six teachers are presented in

Table 1. Profiles of the six participating teachers.

Case	Teacher Initial	Major	Years Teaching English to Children	English Proficiency Level b	Degree	Kindergarten a
1	H	English	2	TEM-8	Bachelor	A
2	E	English	9	TEM-8	Bachelor	B
3	S	ECE	1.5	CET-4	Bachelor	C
4	R	ECE	10	CET-4	Diploma	C
5	Z	ECE	25	None	Diploma	D
6	W	ECE	16	None	Diploma	D

Note. ^a Kindergarten A, B, and C are three private kindergartens located in three cities of Henan Province, China. Kindergarten D is a public university-affiliated kindergarten, also situated in Henan Province. ^b The TEM-8 (Test for English Majors Grade 8), which is roughly equivalent to CEFR C1+, serves as a key EFL assessment for English majors in China. In a similar vein, the CET-4 (College English Test Band 4), comparable to CEFR B1, is a well-established EFL examination designed for non-English majors.

.

2.2. Data Collection

To collect data on the knowledge held by ECE EFL teachers, we employed the method of stimulated recall classroom observation. This technique, which has been widely used in previous studies to investigate teacher knowledge, involves observing teachers’ classroom practices and subsequently discussing these observations with them to gain deeper insights into their pedagogical knowledge [22,23].

2.2.1. Videotaped Classroom Observation

Open-ended classroom observations were conducted over two months to authentically depict ECE EFL teaching, involving 13 half-day sessions in which 24 classes were observed across six teachers. The objective was to encompass a wide range of EFL teaching contexts and various age groups, including eight lessons for K1 (ages 3–4), eight lessons for K2 (ages 4–5), and eight lessons for K3 (ages 5–6). This approach ensured that the study covered diverse instructional scenarios and developmental stages within early childhood education.

The number and frequency of observations were influenced by several factors, such as the standard schedule of twice-weekly English classes in the kindergartens and the availability of the participating teachers. Ultimately, six lessons from Teacher H and Teacher E were recorded over a two-week period. For the other four teachers, three lessons each—one from K1, one from K2, and one from K3—were recorded over a three-week period. Altogether, 24 observations were made across the three levels involving the six English teachers.

Sampling lessons over two to three weeks was advantageous as it allowed for an overview of how teachers managed various English teaching topics and different levels of students. Additionally, observing consecutive weeks helped track the continuity of English teaching content. All lessons were recorded using a portable digital video camera, with the footage subsequently transferred to a laptop for the teachers to review. In addition to the video recordings, detailed field notes were taken to provide supplementary context.

2.2.2. Stimulated Recall

Twenty-four English lessons were captured on video. On the same day as each lesson, a stimulated recall session was held with the teacher involved. In these sessions, teachers reviewed their lesson videos and paused at designated moments to articulate their thought processes and the rationale behind their actions. Utilizing video segments and stimulated recall protocols, this method elucidates the complexity of teacher thinking during classroom activities. It also acts as a mentoring tool, enabling teachers to scrutinize their teaching methods and expand their knowledge [22]. While stimulated recall does not offer a complete view of all the knowledge demonstrated in the lessons, it effectively highlights the knowledge categories that teachers discuss and implement [23].

To facilitate recall, the delay between a teacher’s in-class thinking and their subsequent reporting was minimized, with the recall session always occurring on the same day as the observation. Following the guidelines of Gass and Mackey, this practice improves the reliability of the recall process [24]. The interviews conducted during the stimulated recall sessions were audio-recorded, providing essential raw data to analyze the knowledge underpinning the teachers’ actions.

The audio from each stimulated recall session was transcribed within the week it was recorded. Initial analysis of these transcriptions revealed pressing issues that required deeper investigation, leading to the formulation of additional questions for later sessions. These questions were designed to probe further into significant points raised by the participants. This iterative process continued until no further information could be extracted, signaling the achievement of data saturation.

2.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted collaboratively by the two authors, who are experts in English language education and ECE. They reviewed the audio transcriptions from the stimulated recall sessions to create summaries for each session. The dataset comprised approximately ten hours of observational footage, fourteen hours of interview recordings, and a total of 273,392 words. NVIVO 12 Pro software was utilized for the analysis. The analytical framework for teacher knowledge, developed from a literature review, focused on three primary areas of knowledge: (1) knowledge of child L1 acquisition in practice, detailing episodes that demonstrated this knowledge and its impact on teaching choices; (2) knowledge of child L2 acquisition in practice, detailing episodes that demonstrated this knowledge and its impact on teaching choices; and (3) knowledge of linguistics in practice, detailing episodes that demonstrated this knowledge and its impact on teaching choices.

The initial broad framework provided only a basic set of categories; further categories or subcategories needed to be developed through the process of inductive analysis. Using NVIVO 12 Pro, each transcript from the qualitative stimulated recall sessions or interviews was coded on an individual basis. The data were divided into meaningful segments, from which we derived and synthesized new categories and subcategories. The coding for the initial interviews established specific codes, which were then applied to later interviews. This process allowed for the emergence of new codes as the analysis evolved. The data were examined inductively (refer to

Table 2. The study’s coding framework.

Category (References, Percentage/Total: 187)	Subcategory (References, Percentage/Total: 187)	Examples
Knowledge of child L2 acquisition in practice (141, 75%)	✧ How L2 is learned (53, 28%) ♦ the rule from repeated listening to speaking ♦ the importance of repeating and guessing	The first time to use the toy pig was to let the children listen the word “pig”. As the second time, it was used to let them say the sentence “it’s a pig”.
	✧ The child’s role in L2 learning (33, 18%) ♦ a child’s learning from peers ♦ a child’s imitation of teachers	Children are more inclined to engage with their peers than just learn from their parents or teachers.
	✧ The teacher’s role in a child’s L2 learning (30, 16%) ♦ teachers’ input ♦ teachers’ interactions with the children	You need to provide input many times in order togetone output.
	✧ How L2 sentence is learned (25, 13%) ♦ learning of English sentences through the operation of materials and play ♦ the difficulty and complexity learning English sentences	In the first lesson, teaching “What is your name?” was challenging because the childrencouldn’tunderstand at all.
Knowledge of linguistics in practice (27, 15%)	✧ The sound system of the English language (17, 9%) ♦ the accuracy of the pronunciation ♦ the words difficult to pronounce	For a child, it is difficult to pronounce ‘three.’
	✧ The English grammar (10, 6%) ♦ the importance of using the grammar correctly	I realized ‘It is a broccoli’ was incorrect and removed the ‘a’ while preparing the lesson plan.
Knowledge of child L1 acquisition in practice (19, 10%)	✧ How L1 is learned (12, 6%) ♦ the rule from repeated listening to speaking ♦ the relations between children’s L1 and L2 acquisition	In fact, there are no significant differences between English and Chinese; both are tools of language communication.
	✧ The child’s role in L1 learning (7, 4%) ♦ a child’s creativity in L1 learning ♦ a child’s imitation of adults’ language	He [My child] effortlessly transitions between the two [Mandarin and dialect].

Note. This study presents NVivo’s cluster nodes or hierarchical maps in a table format, making the structure clearer and more intuitive. The first column, “Category”, represents the third-level coding in Nvivo, corresponding to selective coding. The second column, “Subcategory”, includes secondary coding (axial coding) and primary coding (open coding). The third column provides examples that define each subcategory.

). Subsequently, the categories and subcategories associated with teachers who majored in English were compared to those who majored in ECE, as shown in

Table 3. CK categories and subcategories of ECE EFL teachers with English majors (N = 2) and ECE majors (N = 4), with frequency (%) of each category and subcategory.

CK Categories and Subcategories	English Major				ECE Major
	H	E	ALL		S	R	Z	W	ALL
Knowledge of linguistics in practice				9						38
The English grammar	5	11	8 4		7	6	7	14	8 5
The sound system of the English language	2	0	1		0	28	79	0	30 1
Knowledge of child L2 acquisition in practice				87						51
The teacher’s role in a child’s L2 learning	7	33	19 2		36	0	0	14	11 3
How L2 is learned	67	3	37 1		14	33	7	71	26 2
How L2 sentence is learned	12	11	12 3		14	6	0	0	6 6
The child’s role in L2 learning	2	39	19 2		14	6	7	0	8 5
Knowledge of child L1 acquisition in practice				4						11
How L1 is learned	5	0	3		7	22	0	0	9 4
The child’s role in L1 learning	0	3	1		7	0	0	0	2

Note. ALL = Data were aggregated for all teachers within each group. Superscripts were used to denote the rank of the subcategories most frequently reported by each group.

.

3. Results

3.1. CK Categories and Subcategories of ECE EFL Teachers in Classroom Practice

The qualitative data revealed three main categories of CK among ECE EFL teachers in the Chinese classroom context: knowledge of child L2 acquisition (75%), knowledge of linguistics (15%), and knowledge of L1 acquisition (10%). These proportions were calculated by dividing the number of references for each category by the total number of references (187) across all knowledge categories (see Table 2 and Figure 1). Below, we provide detailed descriptions of the primary categories and their subcategories.

3.1.1. Knowledge of Child L2 Acquisition

How L2 is learned: Almost all participants were in favor of children’s learning of English from listening to speaking. For instance, one participant explained the reasons why she displayed the same toys or teaching aids two times at different stages of teaching as follows:

The first time to use the toy pig was to let the children listen the word “pig”. As the second time, it was used to let them say the sentence “it’s a pig”. When the children said, “it’s a pig”, the toy pig would come out of the box.

(Teacher H)

The first time to mix the red and yellow gouache was to let the children listen to the sentence “Red and yellow make orange”. There was nothing related to speaking at this stage. Then, the second time to mix the gouache was to guide them in saying the sentence.

(Teacher H)

In addition to emphasizing the significance of listening and speaking in children’s English learning, participants frequently mentioned the strategies of “Repeating” and “Guessing”. For example, one participant stated, “Just repeat and do it over and over again. If he does not stand up, I pull him up. It takes a while for them to be familiar with the instruction” (Teacher H). Similarly, “guessing” played a crucial role. For example, one participant specified, “I took out two flashcards: one was ‘orange’, and the other was “red”. I had the children guess and flick the card for orange. If a child flicked ‘red’, I reminded him/her. What I did was to let the children guess the meaning of ‘orange’” (Teacher H).

The child’s role in L2 learning. Two aspects were related to the children’s roles in learning English: learning from peers and imitating the teacher’s verbal language. One participant highlighted peer learning, noting, “Children are more inclined to engage with their peers than just learn from their parents or teachers. He/she may want to speak a word or sentence to his/her classmates” (Teacher E). Imitating or repeating what the teacher said was also considered an important strategy for learning English at an early stage. For instance, one participant described the following: “When I ask the K1 children ‘what is this animal?’ They echo my words and simply repeat them. This is a form of imitation in children’s early English learning” (Teacher E). She added, “It may take half a semester, a whole semester, or even a year for a child to come out of this imitating stage” (Teacher E).

The teacher’s role in a child’s L2 learning: One aspect of the teacher’s role in children’s English learning is their input. One participant emphasized the importance of input, stating, “You need to provide input many times in order to get one output. You need much more input so that the child can understand the meaning and produce output accurately” (Teacher E). Another aspect relevant to the teacher’s role is their modified interactions with the children. This includes how to provide appropriate elaborations, gestures and scaffolding to make English comprehensible to children. For example, one participant stated the following:

When I ask, “what color do you like?” if a child doesn’t know how to answer, I offer choices like “red, yellow, blue, or green?” When I ask, “what animal do you like?” I use gestures to assist the child. I know which child can answer the question and which cannot. For those who can, I ask more challenging questions, such as “How to make gray?”

(Teacher E)

How L2 sentence is learned: Some participants discussed how children learn English sentences through hands-on operation of materials and different kinds of play in an ECE EFL classroom. One participant explained that the reason for playing with the colored clay was to “let the children learn the sentence ‘red and yellow can make orange’ by hands-on operation of the clay” (Teacher H). Another participant described a role-playing activity used to teach the sentence “What is your name?” during the first English class for K1 children. She stated the following:

In the first lesson, teaching “What is your name?” was challenging because the children couldn’t understand at all. This is a total immersion kindergarten with no Chinese used in English classes. The class teacher and I played the roles of Star Bob and Star Jill [characters from the English textbook]. One of us would be Star Bob and the other Star Jill, saying, “Hello, what is your name?” “I am Star Bob”. “What is your name?” “I am..”. It was through this method to help them learn the sentence.

(Teacher E)

The participant also provided another example to illustrate how children learned complex sentences from simple ones. She stated,

“What is this?” was a frequently asked question in class. The words “color”, “animal”, and “food” were learnt after the sentence “what is this?” When I used these words repeatedly in class, the children finally understood both the words and the sentences like “what is this color?” or “what is this food?”

(Teacher E)

3.1.2. Knowledge of Linguistics in Practice

The sound system of the English language: The participants emphasized the importance of accurate pronunciation in the English language. For example, one noted, “For a child, it is difficult to pronounce ‘three’. Even for an adult, he/she may directly speak out the word from the mouth without biting the tongue. We are trying our best effort to teach the correct pronunciation” (Teacher R). Another participant questioned the appropriateness of including challenging words in the K1 curriculum, stating, “The words ‘mouth’ and ‘nose’ are not easy to pronounce for a kid. If I speak the word “mouth” too fast, I don’t think the children can pronounce it. I’m unsure if these words should be taught in K1” (Teacher Z).

The English grammar: The importance of correct grammar usage in the ECE EFL classroom was emphasized by most participants. According to one participant, “A child cannot produce a correct output if given incorrect input. I realized that ‘It is a broccoli’ was incorrect and removed the ‘a’ while preparing the lesson plan” (Teacher E). Similarly, another participant stated, “What a teacher says must be a correct model for the children, meaning accurate input. For example, we say ‘one leaf,’ but ‘many leaves’” (Teacher W).

3.1.3. Knowledge of Child L1 Acquisition in Practice

How L1 is learned: The participants pointed out that the process of children learning language follows a progression from listening to speaking. One teacher illustrated this with an example from her own experience raising her baby. She explained,

When my baby was one year old, he had a dog toy named “小棕 [xiaozong]”. Initially, he didn’t understand what “小棕” meant. I would say: “Baby, please give me 小棕”. He could pick up the toy but couldn’t say “小棕”. By the time he was one and a half years old, he began to speak and started saying “小棕, 小棕”. This demonstrates the rule of language learning: a child first needs to listen repeatedly, then recognizes the object and its name, and finally starts to imitate adults by speaking it out.

(Teacher H)

The participants also discussed the relationship between children’s acquisition of their L1 and their L2, noting similarities between learning English and Chinese. One teacher remarked, “In fact, there are no significant differences between English and Chinese; both are tools of language communication” (Teacher R). Another participant shared a similar perspective, stating,

A child does not understand what “头” [head] means when only a few months old. You point to the head and say “头” repeatedly. After many repetitions, the child understands its meaning. Learning English follows the same pattern. There are universal rules in language acquisition.

(Teacher H)

The child’s role in L1 learning: One participant mentioned the role of a child’s creativity in the acquisition and use of their L1. She gave an example of her child smoothly switching between dialect and Mandarin. She explained, “At home, my child speaks Mandarin with me but switches to dialect when talking with his grandparents, who do not speak Mandarin. He effortlessly transitions between the two” (Teacher E). Another participant observed a common behavior in children’s language imitation, noting,

Children often repeat the last word heard in a question. For instance, if you ask “你喜欢爸爸还是妈妈? [Do you like daddy or mummy?]”, the child will answer “妈妈 [Mummy]”. If the question is “你喜欢妈妈还是爸爸? [Do you like mummy or daddy?]”, the child will say “爸爸 [Daddy]”. This pattern occurs because children habitually imitate the last word when they do not fully understand a sentence.

(Teacher S)

3.2. Comparing Teachers with Majors in English and ECE: Similarities and Differences

3.2.1. The Comparisons of CK Categories and Subcategories between the Two Groups

Table 3 shows that both groups of teachers demonstrated similar numbers of CK categories (3) and subcategories (8) identified in their reports. A Spearman Rank Correlation analysis of the CK subcategories’ frequency counts for both groups was performed. The results indicate that the correlation is not significant ($r_s=0.20, p=0.635$), suggesting important differences emerged between them in the type of CK subcategories.

3.2.2. The Comparisons on Dominant CK Subcategories between the Two Groups

In Table 3, the “All” column indicates the frequency at which each CK subcategory was referenced by the two groups of teachers in their reports. Subcategories with a frequency of at least 6% are marked with superscripts and considered dominant. Gatbonton (2008) used a 6% frequency as a threshold for dominance because it distinguished the more frequently reported categories from those reported at a frequency of 3% or lower in her study [25]. Applying the same criterion here, five dominant subcategories emerged for teachers who majored in English, whereas teachers who majored in ECE had seven. A closer examination reveals differences in the rank ordering of dominant CK subcategories between the two groups. For teachers with an English major, the list was led by how L2 is learned (37%), followed by the teacher’s role in a child’s L2 learning (19%), the child’s role in L2 learning (19%), how L2 sentence is learned (12%), and the English grammar (8%). For ECE majors, the top subcategory was the sound system of the English language (30%), followed by how L2 is learned (26%), the teacher’s role in a child’s L2 learning (11%), how L1 is learned (9%), the English grammar, the child’s role in L2 learning (both at 8%), and how L2 sentence is learned (6%) (see Figure 2 and Table 3). A Spearman Rank Correlation analysis of these dominant CK subcategories revealed no significant correlation ($r_s=0.76, p=0.133$), indicating not only differences in the number and type of dominant CK subcategories but also in their frequency rankings between the two groups.

4. Discussion

The objective of this study is to delve deeply into the CK of ECE EFL teachers, and to compare CK between two groups of teachers who majored in English and ECE. This research emphasizes the significance of CK in ECE EFL classroom practices, aligning with existing literature on CK among mathematics and science teachers [1,2]. The findings reveal that the CK of ECE EFL teachers possesses unique structural characteristics. While there are some similarities in CK across the two groups of teachers, the differences are more pronounced.

4.1. ECE EFL Teachers’ CK Structure

Different from Shulman’s model, this study identified L1 acquisition theories, L2 acquisition theories, and linguistics knowledge as three distinct factors rather than subdomains of a single factor, CK [3]. These findings support the three-dimensional construct of CK for ECE EFL teachers as proposed by Kim [15]. Kim posited that linguistic knowledge, which individuals utilize beyond the realm of teaching, can be considered common content knowledge [15]. Conversely, knowledge specific to L1 and L2 acquisition, which is crucial for ECE EFL teachers but not necessarily for those using language in other contexts, can be classified as specialized content knowledge. Given that research on the nature and structure of CK is predominantly focused on mathematics and science, this argument needs to be validated by other studies on ECE EFL teacher knowledge [2].

Kim also linked the three-dimensional construct to the study’s participant type—teachers working with preschoolers [15]. At this developmental stage, children are still mastering their first languages, making L1 acquisition knowledge vital for teachers in this language group. This study confirms the validity of Kim’s argument. Additionally, Pinter emphasized the importance of understanding general language development for ECE EFL teachers, as their insights into a child’s L1 progression and vocabulary significantly influence their L2 teaching methods [26].

Just as with L1 acquisition, ECE EFL teachers need to understand the theories and principles of young learners’ L2 acquisition. This includes the order and sequence of L2 acquisition, the factors that affect L2 language learning, and the roles played by both teachers and children in this process. Young children exhibit distinct traits when learning an L2 during early childhood [27]. Children learning English as an L2 pass through certain stages: employing their L1 within the L2 context, entering a silent period, progressing through a phase of formulaic and telegraphic speech without morphological elements, and ultimately achieving productive use of the L2 [28]. Additionally, the variation in children’s L2 development and usage is considerable, influenced by individual differences such as age, motivation, L1 background, personality, identity, and aptitude [27,29]. Scholars have identified several characteristics of teacher input and interaction that can support children’s acquisition of L2. These features include the use of nonlinguistic cues such as pointing and gesturing, speaking at a slower pace, employing simplified grammatical structures and vocabulary, using high-pitched voices, and varying the frequency of linguistic features. These strategies help make the language more accessible and comprehensible for young learners [30,31,32]. Additionally, children build their new language skills by imitating both verbal and nonverbal cues from teachers and peers, which involves negotiating meanings with those around them [13]. These aspects highlight why understanding children’s L2 acquisition forms a unique component of the knowledge base required by ECE EFL teachers [18,33].

4.2. Comparisons of CK between ECE EFL Teachers Majored in English and in ECE

4.2.1. Commonalities between the Two Groups

The study revealed that regardless of their differing majors during pre-service training, both groups of teachers exhibited similar numbers of CK categories and subcategories. This could be attributed to the origins of their knowledge. Currently, there are no specific higher education courses for teaching English to kindergartners in Mainland China. Teachers first encounter relevant training or courses only after they start working as kindergarten English teachers [19]. In-service training is seen as a crucial source of their knowledge. For instance, one participant described her enhanced understanding of an English lesson after training: “The training focuses on the stages of teaching. It includes a warm-up with greetings, songs, presentations, and chants, followed by the main lesson, which involves listening, guessing, imitating, and applying” (Teacher E, English major). These similarities also hint at an “Early Childhoodization” of teachers who majored in English and an “Angloization” of those who majored in ECE [20].

4.2.2. Distinctions between the Two Groups

The study identified distinctions in CK between the two groups, consistent with previous research comparing specialist teachers and generalist teachers in the ECE EFL context [11,33]. Notably, the most frequently reported CK subcategory among teachers who majored in ECE was the sound system of the English language, whereas, for teachers with English majors, the predominant focus was on how L2 is learned. This focus on the sound system by ECE majors may be attributed to their providing children with more opportunities for spoken English, indicating an emphasis on communication as a crucial element of foreign language learning. Conversely, teachers with English majors tended to concentrate more on drilling language items, particularly vocabulary and sentence acquisition.

Such differences also shaped the teaching processes of the two groups. Teachers with English majors, for whom how L2 is learned was the most frequently reported subcategory, structured their teaching into five stages: warm-up, listen-and-repeat, guess-the-meaning, imitation, and application. Typically, during the listen-and-repeat phase, they employed strategies such as repeating key words in various sentence patterns. In contrast, teachers with ECE majors, who focused on speaking and communication, employed a play-based approach to English teaching, often mapping words and sentences in nursery rhymes (Figure 3). For example, Teacher W explained, “In today’s lesson on ‘Autumn’, the nursery rhyme was broken down into words and sentences and presented step by step with pictures, making it more intuitive, specific, and easier for children to understand” (Teacher W).

Another significant distinction with implications for teacher training emerged in the subcategory of how L1 is learned, which was a focal point for teachers with ECE majors but less so for those with English majors. The findings suggest that teachers with English majors prefer using a monolingual immersion approach, while those with ECE majors acknowledge the crucial role that L1 plays in the ECE EFL classroom. This difference in perspective is reflected in their teaching methods. The use of L1 is considered a crucial psychological tool that helps learners create effective collaborative dialogs during group activities, aids in clarifying meanings, and improves communication, student engagement, and positive relationships within the classroom [12,34].

One possible explanation for this difference is that ECE-major teachers often have a background in child development. Consequently, these teachers not only focus on directly teaching English but also ensure that their methods are tailored appropriately for preschoolers. For example, Teacher Zhang, who graduated from a Preschool Education College, mentioned learning various ECE pedagogies there, including those related to science, arts, and mathematics. She found these pedagogies beneficial to her English teaching, stating, “Without these courses, my English lessons would be simplistic and boring. Integrating these pedagogies makes the lessons more suitable for preschoolers and more engaging” (Teacher Zhang).

4.3. Methodological Considerations

The research paradigm used in this study is stimulated recall classroom observation, a qualitative method that is a mainstream approach for investigating EFL teacher knowledge. At its core, this study remains within the qualitative research framework. However, while most scholars using this method focus solely on qualitative data, this study incorporated both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis identified CK categories, while the quantitative analysis provided numerical indices to assess differences between groups. Together, these two approaches yielded insights that would not have been possible with either method alone.

4.4. Implications

This study carries important implications for both research and practice. Theoretically, it challenges Shulman’s notion of CK as a singular construct by demonstrating that it is, in fact, indeed multidimensional within the context of ECE EFL teaching, encompassing three specific categories: knowledge of L1 acquisition, knowledge of L2 acquisition, and knowledge of linguistics [3]. These identified categories and subcategories can be applied in practical settings. For instance, curriculum specialists and teacher educators, both in China and in other EFL environments, can use these insights to craft curricula and educational programs for ECE teachers that are based on these knowledge domains. Courses focusing on how L2 is learned, the sound system of the English language, and how L1 is learned should be integral parts of both pre-service and in-service training programs, given their significant impact on the classroom practices of ECE EFL teachers. Additionally, teacher education programs ought to be designed to accommodate the specific needs of different types of ECE EFL teachers, categorized by their educational backgrounds, rather than applying a uniform approach. As suggested by Rokita-Jaśkow and Ellis, generalist ECE EFL teachers require training in the development of foreign language acquisition, whereas specialists in foreign languages should be trained in child development and early educational methods [35].

4.5. Limitations

This study primarily used qualitative methods to investigate the categories, subcategories, and structural characteristics of ECE EFL teachers’ CK. With a small sample of just six teachers, the findings require further validation through more robust research, such as quantitative or mixed-method approaches, including self-report surveys or direct assessments.

5. Conclusions

In summary, this study expands upon Shulman’s framework of teacher knowledge by examining the CK of ECE EFL teachers [3]. The results demonstrate that CK in ECE EFL teaching is multifaceted, encompassing three main categories: knowledge of L1 acquisition, knowledge of L2 acquisition, and knowledge of linguistics. Additionally, the study identified significant differences in CK subcategories between teachers with majors in English and those in ECE, especially in the emphasis on certain subcategories. For example, understanding how L1 is learned was notably more prevalent among ECE majors compared to those with English majors. These findings have important implications for the design of pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, particularly those aimed at teaching English to young children. By incorporating targeted training on CK categories such as L1 and L2 acquisition, those programs can better prepare educators to meet the specific needs of young English language learners. To further solidify these conclusions, additional research with larger and more diverse samples of ECE EFL teachers is needed. Future studies could use quantitative or mixed-method approaches to validate the CK structure identified here or to explore the relationship between ECE EFL teachers’ CK and children’s English learning outcomes. Such research could ultimately lead to more effective English language instruction in early childhood education.