Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study examines whether English as a Foreign Language (EFL) textbooks used in Chilean public primary schools (1st–4th grade) align with the expected proficiency levels and thematic content associated with the unofficial curriculum for early English education (there is no official curriculum at this level). More specifically, it investigates (a) what types of content these textbooks construct and (b) the extent to which this content corresponds to CEFR-oriented expectations for young learners and contributes to sustainable and equitable English language education.

It addresses an important gap by focusing on early primary grades in Chile, where textbooks are distributed despite the absence of an official curriculum. While research has examined alignment between curriculum and materials in secondary education, fewer studies analyze the role of textbooks as “policy-in-action” in early language education. By examining the relationship between textbooks, CEFR-based expectations, and sustainable language education, the study contributes to discussions about educational equity and policy implementation in Global South contexts.

The study contributes empirical evidence on how textbook content is constructed and how it aligns with curricular expectations in a context where policy frameworks are only partially formalized. It combines pedagogic discourse analysis with the register model of Systemic Functional Linguistics to examine the thematic organization of textbook content. In doing so, it provides insights into how textbook content may support or constrain equitable learning opportunities in early EFL education and highlights tensions between standardized frameworks and local contextual relevance.

I believe that the methodological section could benefit from greater clarity and detail. In particular, the authors could:

·       Provide a clearer explanation of how the pedagogic discourse analysis was operationalized and how coding decisions were made.

·       Clarify the criteria used to identify and categorize thematic content and how reliability or consistency of analysis was ensured.

·       Explain more explicitly how the comparison between textbook content and CEFR-based wordlists was conducted.

·       Consider including examples of analyzed units or excerpts to illustrate the analytical process.

Overall, the conclusions are broadly consistent with the evidence presented. The analysis suggests that the textbooks show general alignment with CEFR-oriented expectations and with the thematic categories present in the vocabulary wordlists. At the same time, the study identifies limitations in the contextual and cultural relevance of some content. These findings directly address the research questions regarding alignment and the contribution of textbooks to sustainable language education.

The inclusion of both regional and international research helps situate the study within broader debates about language education policy and textbook design. Improvements could include ensuring consistency in formatting and verifying that all cited sources are in the reference list.

The contribution of the paper is relevant and the paper is well written but revisions are needed, for example, in the abstract, instead of 'search' question use 'research question' and check if all sources cited in the text are listed in the end. For instance, I noticed that the paper Vieira and Finardi (2019) was missing from the list in the end.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment and the revised manuscript, where the main changes are highlighted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper presents a valuable contribution to research on curriculum–material alignment and early foreign language education. On this basis, I recommend revisions:

1. The discussion and conclusion sections would benefit from explicitly revisiting the two research questions posed in the introduction. While the results implicitly respond to these questions, the discussion should more directly synthesize the findings in relation to each research question to ensure conceptual coherence across the paper.
2. The authors should more explicitly reconnect their findings with the literature and theoretical perspectives outlined in the framework. In particular, the discussion should situate the results within the broader research context on curriculum alignment, textbook discourse, and language education policy. Doing so would strengthen the scholarly contribution and clarify how the study advances or confirms existing research.
3. The discussion could more clearly articulate how the findings contribute to ongoing debates about EFL textbook design, curriculum implementation, and contextual relevance in primary education. The observation that some registers are misaligned with students’ lived realities is particularly interesting and could be further interpreted in relation to the literature on contextualized language learning and locally adaptable materials.

In summary, the manuscript is well structured, methodologically sound, and addresses a relevant educational issue. With clearer alignment between the research questions, discussion, and theoretical framework, the paper will be further strengthened and will make a meaningful contribution to research on EFL education and curriculum–material alignment.

Author Response

Please, see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf