Phonological Awareness in Chinese EFL: Age-Related Development and Phoneme-Specific Challenges
Saved in:
| Title: | Phonological Awareness in Chinese EFL: Age-Related Development and Phoneme-Specific Challenges |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Lishi Liang (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(2). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education Grade 4 Intermediate Grades Grade 5 Middle Schools Grade 6 |
| Descriptors: | Phonological Awareness, English (Second Language), Grade 4, Grade 5, Grade 6, Age Differences, Instructional Program Divisions, Skill Development, Chinese, Second Language Learning, Elementary School Students, Phonemes, Rhyme |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.70115 |
| ISSN: | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| Abstract: | The necessity of phonological awareness (PA) instruction has consistently been emphasized in EFL and ESL contexts. However, many EFL/ESL settings follow highly structured, exam-oriented curricula that leave little room for such instruction. This imbalance between research emphasis and classroom reality highlights the need to investigate whether PA instruction is necessary, that is, do learners' PA skills develop spontaneously with age? Another unsolved issue in EFL/ESL contexts concerns which specific phoneme contrasts are most challenging to differentiate, as systematic research on this question remains limited. This study investigates whether learners' grade level relates to their PA and identifies which specific phoneme contrasts pose the greatest difficulty. A total of 995 fourth- to sixth-grade students completed a paper-and-pencil PA test. Results revealed that PA performance significantly improved with grade level, with the largest effect size in rhyme detection. Consonant contrasts (e.g., /v/--/ð/, /s/--/z/) revealed greater difficulty than vowel contrasts. Findings suggest that although some PA skills may develop naturally with age, grade-appropriate PA instruction is crucial for cultivating skills that might be hard to spontaneously acquire, such as rhyme detection. The results also underscore the importance of assessing and considering learners' linguistic background, including the influence of Chinese dialects, to target specific phoneme difficulties. Because of the diversity of Chinese dialects, the findings might primarily generalize to speakers of a specific dialect. Nevertheless, undertaken in a Chinese context, this study also offers insights for EFL/ESL educators on optimizing PA development within structured curricula and contributes to theoretical understandings of cross-linguistic speech perception. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1503759 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFILCXsi9fAJkaD1zq1z5p0AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPKxEmru39Ol7nP29QIBEICBmqcQ4mwqIVZ18SXkWSN68gKD5IG8feoV-ENTYZQ1fZ2yqpcedFYeYBi3WPa32bufbTWhFfhZbWXy3SUlVtJOo1FtrvhxGgp7v9VtoUm_tgWylblPL6TJmmQkNQdVmskpZsqz1klHdrzfNNb7qNzqDNJwdJ5Z1_AC1YtyIOR_tj7cmx_IcgHz4wAYtuqmGJ24Uv_nsB3fQilI_2w= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0193225980;[nrnu]02apr.26;2026Apr27.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193225980-1">Phonological Awareness in Chinese EFL: Age‐Related Development and Phoneme‐Specific Challenges </title> <p>The necessity of phonological awareness (PA) instruction has consistently been emphasized in EFL and ESL contexts. However, many EFL/ESL settings follow highly structured, exam‐oriented curricula that leave little room for such instruction. This imbalance between research emphasis and classroom reality highlights the need to investigate whether PA instruction is necessary, that is, do learners' PA skills develop spontaneously with age? Another unsolved issue in EFL/ESL contexts concerns which specific phoneme contrasts are most challenging to differentiate, as systematic research on this question remains limited. This study investigates whether learners' grade level relates to their PA and identifies which specific phoneme contrasts pose the greatest difficulty. A total of 995 fourth‐ to sixth‐grade students completed a paper‐and‐pencil PA test. Results revealed that PA performance significantly improved with grade level, with the largest effect size in rhyme detection. Consonant contrasts (e.g., /v/—/ð/, /s/—/z/) revealed greater difficulty than vowel contrasts. Findings suggest that although some PA skills may develop naturally with age, grade‐appropriate PA instruction is crucial for cultivating skills that might be hard to spontaneously acquire, such as rhyme detection. The results also underscore the importance of assessing and considering learners' linguistic background, including the influence of Chinese dialects, to target specific phoneme difficulties. Because of the diversity of Chinese dialects, the findings might primarily generalize to speakers of a specific dialect. Nevertheless, undertaken in a Chinese context, this study also offers insights for EFL/ESL educators on optimizing PA development within structured curricula and contributes to theoretical understandings of cross‐linguistic speech perception.</p> <p>Keywords: EFL/ESL learners; IRT analysis; phonological awareness; second/foreign language learning</p> <p>This study examined how EFL learners' English PA develops with grade level and figured out the specific English phoneme contrasts that are challenging for Chinese EFL learners to learn. A total of 995 fourth‐ to sixth‐grade students were recruited. Results revealed that PA performance significantly improved with grade level, with the largest effect size in rhyme detection. Consonant contrasts (e.g., /v/—/ð/, /s/—/z/) revealed greater difficulty than vowel contrasts. Undertaken in a Chinese context, this study offers insights for EFL/ESL educators on optimizing PA development within structured curricula and contributes to theoretical understandings of cross‐linguistic speech perception.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70115-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70115-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225980-3">Introduction</hd> <p>Reading proficiency is a cornerstone of academic achievement. Phonological awareness (PA), the ability to recognize and manipulate the sound structure of spoken language (Harris and Hodges [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]; Muñoz et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref2">46</reflink>]), is a well‐established precursor of reading success (Ehri [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref3">19</reflink>]; Melby‐Lervåg et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref4">43</reflink>]; Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref5">61</reflink>]; Schaughency et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref6">59</reflink>]). Although explicit PA instruction has been shown to improve reading development (e.g., Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>]; Ehri [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]; Rehfeld et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref9">58</reflink>]), such instruction is often limited and integrated peripherally into school curricula (Liang and Fryer [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>]) in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. For example, in mainland China, formal English education typically begins in Grade 3 (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref11">45</reflink>]), with only two to three lessons per week, and these lessons generally prioritizing exam‐oriented vocabulary and reading comprehension. Similar curricular constraints exist in other high‐stakes EFL contexts (e.g., Au [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]; Tran et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref13">68</reflink>]). In such contexts, it remains unclear whether and how PA develops across grade levels among EFL learners who receive minimal explicit PA instruction.</p> <p>In addition to overall grade‐related development, another focal point in students' PA development concerns its developmental pattern. Prevailing models suggest that PA develops along a hierarchical continuum, beginning with larger sound units (e.g., syllables and rhymes) and advancing toward smaller phonemic units (Anthony and Francis [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Justi et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]; Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref16">61</reflink>]). However, these models are predominantly derived from studies on native English speakers, raising questions about their generalizability to learners with different linguistic and educational backgrounds, such as EFL learners whose linguistic backgrounds and instructional contexts differ from those of L1 learners. Cross‐linguistic transfer (Cummins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref18">80</reflink>]) and differences in educational contexts (OECD [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref19">53</reflink>]; Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref20">63</reflink>]) may influence PA development differently in these populations (Cummins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>]; OECD [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref22">53</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref23">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Two gaps persist in the literature. First, few studies have systematically examined how EFL learners' PA develops under the influence of their L1 and the instructional contexts. Second, although previous studies have identified some English consonant (e.g., Hua [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>]; Zhang and Yin [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref25">79</reflink>]) and vowel contrasts (e.g., Georgiou and Giannakou [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]; Lai [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]; Peterson and Barney [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref28">55</reflink>]) that are difficult for Chinese learners to differentiate, these findings remain fragmented. Little research has systematically documented a comprehensive set of phoneme distinctions.</p> <p>The current study seeks to address the gaps by examining (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) the relationship between grade level (fourth to sixth grades) and PA development, including rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination (RQ1, H1, H2 a–c) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) the specific phonemes that pose the greatest challenges for Chinese students to differentiate (RQ2). Although undertaken in a Chinese primary EFL context, findings could contribute to a clearer understanding of grade‐related development in PA and phoneme‐specific challenges in broader EFL settings, with implications for both theory and pedagogy.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-4">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225980-5">Importance and Development of Phonological Awareness</hd> <p>Phonological awareness (PA) is defined as the ability to detect and manipulate the sound structure of words (Ehri [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]; Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref32">31</reflink>]). It has been consistently demonstrated as an important predictor of reading success (e.g., Ehri [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref33">19</reflink>]; Melby‐Lervåg et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]; Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref35">61</reflink>]). Its contribution to reading could be explained by the decoding‐vocabulary‐comprehension triangle (DVC) model (Perfetti et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref36">54</reflink>]) which highlights decoding as a fundamental element of reading comprehension. Because decoding relies heavily on the ability to manipulate speech sound units, such as syllables, onsets‐rimes, and phonemes (Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref37">67</reflink>]), PA plays an essential role in the development of decoding skills. Empirical evidence further demonstrates that PA exerts moderate to large effects on word reading (Murphy Odo [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref38">47</reflink>]). Therefore, previous studies indicated that strong PA skills enhance both decoding and vocabulary, ultimately supporting reading comprehension.</p> <p>Although explicit and systematic PA instruction has been demonstrated to significantly enhance PA and reading ability (Ehri [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]; Murphy Odo [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref40">47</reflink>]; Rehfeld et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref41">58</reflink>]), the availability and intensity of such instruction vary across educational contexts. In many EFL settings, PA is not taught as an explicit component but is embedded within the existing English curriculum (Liang and Fryer [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref42">37</reflink>]). Rather than demonstrating the necessity of explicit PA instruction, the present study focuses on investigating how PA skill develops across grade levels within an EFL context where systematic PA instruction is limited. Understanding such grade‐related development is particularly important given that most developmental evidence of PA has been derived from L1 English populations. Whether similar development emerges among EFL learners remains underexplored.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-6">Developmental Pattern of Phonological Awareness</hd> <p>Prevailing models posited a hierarchical progression in PA development, beginning with larger units, such as syllables and rhymes, and gradually advancing toward smaller phonemic units (Anthony and Francis [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]; Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]; Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref45">61</reflink>]). Longitudinal evidence further confirmed this sequence in native English speakers, with rhyme detection performance plateauing at an early age, whereas phoneme blending skills continue to develop until late elementary grades (e.g., Carroll et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, these models are largely based on findings from native English‐speaking populations. Their applicability to learners from diverse linguistic and instructional contexts, such as those in EFL settings, remains uncertain. For EFL learners, PA developmental pattern could be different because of cross‐linguistic transfer (Cummins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]) and instructional variability (OECD [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref48">53</reflink>]). Cummins's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]) Interdependence Hypothesis emphasizes the significant influence of L1 on L2 development. For example, learners whose L1 is an alphabetic script (e.g., Spanish) often benefit from transferable phoneme‐grapheme correspondence skills when learning English (e.g., García and Kleifgen [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref50">22</reflink>]; López [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref51">42</reflink>]), whereas those with a non‐alphabetic L1 (e.g., Mandarin Chinese) can encounter greater difficulties in developing English PA (e.g., Liang and Fryer [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>]; Yeung et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref53">78</reflink>]). Despite these investigations, few studies have systematically examined whether EFL learners' PA developmental trajectories are the same as those in native English speakers.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-7">Phoneme Discrimination Among EFL Learners</hd> <p>Phoneme discrimination, defined as the ability to detect subtle similarities and differences (e.g., recognizing that "think" is different from "sink") between individual phonemes (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref54">36</reflink>]), is a foundational phonological subskill that can predict later reading success (Chung and Bidelman [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref55">10</reflink>]; Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref56">36</reflink>]). Deficiencies in phoneme discrimination can lead to inaccurate phonological schemas, which would hinder decoding and word recognition (Llombart‐Huesca [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref57">41</reflink>]; Thomas and Sénéchal [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref58">66</reflink>]), and thus influence reading acquisition.</p> <p>The Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM; Best [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]) provides a framework for understanding why phoneme discrimination could be a challenge for EFL learners. The PAM model posits that speech perception is profoundly shaped by the way listeners are attuned to the phonetic cues that signal phonological contrasts in their native language (L1) (So and Best [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref60">64</reflink>]; Tyler et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref61">70</reflink>]). Building on this framework, previous studies have identified several patterns of L1—L2 perception type (So and Best [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref62">64</reflink>]; Sun and van Heuven [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref63">65</reflink>]), each with distinct predictions for discrimination difficulty:</p> <p> <emph>Single Category (SC).</emph> </p> <p>The most difficult pattern—both L2 phonetic units are categorized as a single L1 category (e.g., English /l/—/r/ both are mapped into Japanese /r/).</p> <p> <emph>Two Category (TC).</emph> </p> <p>The easiest pattern—the two L2 phonetic units are categorized as two different L1 categories (e.g., English /æ/—/ɑ/ mapped to distinct Mandarin categories).</p> <p> <emph>Category Goodness (CG).</emph> </p> <p>Moderate to easy—both L2 units are categorized as a single L1 category but one fits better than another.</p> <p> <emph>Uncategorized‐Categorized (UC).</emph> </p> <p>Moderately easy—one L2 phonetic unit can be categorized within the L1 system, but the other cannot.</p> <p> <emph>Uncategorized‐Uncategorized (UU).</emph> </p> <p>Discrimination varies from poor to very good—neither of the two L2 phonetic units can be categorized within the L1 system.</p> <p>Despite these models providing explanations for cross‐language perception, empirical studies investigating which specific phoneme contrasts pose challenges for EFL learners remain limited. Although prior studies have examined selected consonant and vowel contrasts in adults or adolescent learners (e.g., Lai [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]; Miller and Nicely [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref65">44</reflink>]), there is a dearth of research focusing on primary school EFL learners. This age group is particularly important to investigate, as early childhood failure in phoneme discrimination could lead to later reading difficulties (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref66">36</reflink>]; Thomas and Sénéchal [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref67">66</reflink>]). Identifying the most challenging phoneme pairs, therefore, has essential implications for curricular prioritization of more challenging contrasts in EFL contexts, aligning with the OECD's ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref68">53</reflink>]) call for data‐driven language pedagogy.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-8">Current Study</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225980-9">Study Context</hd> <p>Chinese formal English education is strictly guided by the Ministry of Education (MoE) curriculum standards. The 2022 curriculum reform emphasized broader competencies while reducing weekly English classes from three or four to two or three (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref69">45</reflink>]). This reduction increases instructional demands within limited classroom time, consequently limiting opportunities for specialized and explicit PA instruction.</p> <p>Regarding English language abilities, the focus for primary school students is the mastery of vocabulary, sentence structure, basic grammar, reading comprehension, and fundamental writing skills (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref70">45</reflink>]). To align with the MoE requirements, teachers of first‐stage learners (third and fourth graders) typically emphasize vocabulary and sentence structure, with instruction centered on daily living scenarios to develop oral communication skills. In this situation, explicit instruction of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and systematic phonological training is not a common or standard practice (Zhong and Kang [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref71">81</reflink>]). For second‐stage learners (fifth and sixth graders), the curriculum adds more content addressing grammar, reading comprehension, and writing skills. Fifth graders begin short passage reading with continued grammar reinforcement, whereas sixth graders who must prepare for the junior high school entrance exam shift to a more exam‐oriented approach. More practice for reading comprehension and writing skills is implemented. This curriculum structure prioritizes skills directly assessed in exams, leaving little room for explicit PA instruction. Furthermore, the lack of unified and formal teaching materials for PA instruction exacerbates this issue. Although some teachers attempt to incorporate PA‐related activities (e.g., imitation and incidental instruction; Liang and Fryer [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref72">37</reflink>]), these practices are neither systematic nor curriculum‐wide. As a result, although fourth to sixth graders are, to some extent, exposed to some PA‐related content, such as imitating pronunciations by watching videos or through suprasegmental teaching, they do not receive systematic and explicit PA instruction.</p> <p>As discussed earlier, PA plays an important role in learners' reading success; however, because it is largely absent from the Chinese English curriculum, the current study focused on the Chinese EFL context. Furthermore, this study focused exclusively on Chinese primary school students in grades 4 to 6, because these students did not receive any systematic and explicit PA instruction, making them appropriate participants for examining whether PA develops with age. For first and second graders, according to the MoE, the main task is to foster an interest in learning English rather than to develop actual language abilities. Furthermore, the third graders at the target school were considered unsuitable as participants because more PA‐related elements were experimentally incorporated into their classroom instruction, which would interfere with the study's aim of observing development in a context without such instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-10">Research Questions and Hypotheses</hd> <p>On the basis of the unresolved debates and empirical gaps in PA development mentioned above, the current study aims to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>) examine how EFL learners' English PA develops with grade level, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>) figure out the specific English phoneme contrasts that are challenging for EFL learners to learn. Two research questions (RQ1 and RQ2) and four corresponding hypotheses (H1 and H2 a–c) were addressed by the present study.</p> <p>First, RQ1 and H1 directly test the hypothesis that cumulative language exposure through schooling, even in the absence of systematic and explicit PA instruction, may drive implicit phonological development (Cunningham and Carroll [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref75">14</reflink>]; Cassano and Schickedanz [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref76">9</reflink>]). Second, H2 a–c test whether EFL learners' developmental trajectories of English phonological awareness align with the "larger‐to‐smaller units" sequence observed in native English speakers (Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref77">61</reflink>]) or diverge because of L1 transfer effects (Cummins [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]). By addressing these questions, this study not only clarifies the universality of PA developmental models but also informs pedagogical decisions in EFL contexts, particularly whether implicit exposure suffices or explicit instruction remains indispensable for phonological awareness mastery. Finally, RQ2 intends to find out which specific English phoneme contrasts (consonant and vowel) pose specific challenges for EFL learners.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-11">RQ1</hd> <p>How does students' grade level (i.e., school year) relate to their English phonological awareness?</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-12">H1</hd> <p> <emph>Students in higher grade level will significantly outperform their counterparts in lower grade level in total English PA scores</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-13">H2 a–c</hd> <p> <emph>Students in Grade 6 will significantly outperform students in Grade 4 and 5 in phoneme identification (H2a) and discrimination (H2b), but not rhyme detection (H2c)</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-14">RQ2</hd> <p>What specific English phonemes are the most difficult for Chinese primary school students to differentiate?</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-15">Methods</hd> <p>To ensure transparency, replicability, and enhance the credibility of the findings (Nosek et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]), the design and analysis plan of the present study were preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K7XZ5).</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-16">Participants</hd> <p>An a priori power analysis conducted using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]) indicated that a minimum of 159 participants (53 per grade level) would provide 80% power for detecting a medium effect size (<emph>f</emph> = 0.25; <emph>α</emph> = 0.05). The final sample substantially exceeded this requirement and was adequate for both ANOVA and 2PL IRT analyses (DeMars [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]; Schroeders and Gnambs [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref82">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>A total of 995 fourth‐ to sixth‐grade students from a primary school in Guangdong Province, Mainland China, participated in the current study. All participants were native speakers of Chinese and second language speakers of English. None had received any PA‐related instruction prior to the study.</p> <p>Of the 995 tests collected, 181 were excluded (see Table 1 for detailed exclusion reasons) because of blank responses, illegible responses (e.g., nonsensical markings), or highly similar response patterns indicating potential copying. Most of these similar responses came from two specific classes. In these classes, nearly all participants' answers were identical across all test items and almost all achieved full scores. This pattern was inconsistent with their final English exam performance, which showed substantial individual differences (score range: 22.5 to 95.5 out of 100). Additionally, full scores on the current PA test were rare across the whole sample size (1.7%). Therefore, the unusually perfect scores in these two classes may indicate potential copying.</p> <p>1 TABLE Reasons for excluding non‐compliant data.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Exclusion reasons&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Count&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Blank responses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;88&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Identical responses (indicating potential copying)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;60&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Illegible responses&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;31&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Majority of questions omitted (&amp;#8805; 80%)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>The final sample size involved 814 participants (393 female, 421 male) aged 9 to 13 years old (<emph>M</emph> = 10.34, SD = 1.24). The mean age by grade level was: Grade 4 (<emph>M</emph> = 9.42, SD = 0.50), Grade 5 (<emph>M</emph> = 10.42, SD = 0.51), Grade 6 (<emph>M</emph> = 11.29, SD = 1.45).</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-17">Procedure and Scoring</hd> <p>Participants were asked to complete three paper‐and‐pencil‐based PA tests (i.e., rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination) during students' English classes. All three tests were administered to the whole class and completed individually by each student within 15 min in a single session. To ensure the integrity of the testing process, their English teacher supervised the session and prevented any instances of cheating. To motivate participants and accurately assess their PA, the tests were presented as a quiz, with rewards offered to the top three performers in each class.</p> <p>Each answer was scored dichotomously (1 = correct, 0 = incorrect). All tests were graded by both the English teacher and first author. Subtest scores were calculated by summing item scores within each subtest. A final PA score was calculated by summing the three subtests. The maximum possible scores for each subtest and the total score are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics for tests used.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;N&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Maximum score&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Minimum score&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Mean&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Skew&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Rhyme detection test&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;311&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.94&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.02&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;219&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;6.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.42&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;284&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;6.99&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Phoneme identification test&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;311&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;6.67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.69&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;219&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;6.84&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.53&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.53&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.96&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;284&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;7.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.45&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;2.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Phoneme discrimination test&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;311&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;18.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.77&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.76&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;219&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;17.20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.76&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;284&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;19.49&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.43&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Total score&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;311&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;42&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;29.61&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5.37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;219&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;42&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;30.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5.84&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Year 6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;284&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;42&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;33.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;5.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.92&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.87&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225980-18">Instruments</hd> <p>All instruments used in the current study were pen‐and‐paper‐based, regardless of its original format. This adaptation was primarily because of practical considerations. With a large sample size in this study (<emph>N</emph> = 814), pen‐and‐paper‐based tests are more efficient and feasible than oral ones (Huxham et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref83">27</reflink>]). Further, oral tests could improve students' performance by cues unconsciously provided by the examiner, known as the "clever Hans effect" (Pfungst [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref84">56</reflink>]), which may compromise the transparency of the assessment. Previous studies have also shown that the conversion from oral to paper‐pen‐based formats does not necessarily compromise validity. If the construct being measured is identical between two formats of testing, the validity of the test is not expected to be influenced (Huxham et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]). Thus, following these principles and carefully aligning the adapted tests with the content of the original ones, the adaptation in the current study ensures practical feasibility without compromising the reliability or validity of the original instruments. Details of the adaptation process, as well as the reliability and predictive validity of these instruments, are presented below.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-19">Rhyme Detection Task</hd> <p>The rhyme detection task (Muter et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref86">48</reflink>]) is utilized, as it is a widely used assessment tool in PA‐related studies (e.g., Huo [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]; Yeung et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref88">77</reflink>]). The original task demonstrated adequate reliability, with reported reliabilities ranging from 0.80 to 0.92 across different time points (Muter et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref89">48</reflink>]). This task includes 2 practice items and 10 test items. A stimulus word was presented to students, and they were asked to select the word that rhymed with the stimulus word. All words were recorded by a native English speaker (the second author). The current test differs from the original test only in the delivery medium, whereas the testing content remains identical. To minimize the possibility of students guessing the correct answer on the basis of the written form of the word, corresponding pictures were provided to represent the tested words. The pen‐and‐paper‐based version of the rhyme detection task demonstrated adequate reliability, with a Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of 0.67, which is considered acceptable for such a short test (Edelsbrunner et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref90">17</reflink>]). It also demonstrated acceptable predictive validity, as the test score significantly predicted students' overall English learning performance as measured by their final English test score (<emph>β</emph> = 0.348, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.12).</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-20">Phoneme Identification Task</hd> <p>The phoneme identification task (Muter et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref91">48</reflink>]) is utilized since it is a quick and effective test to determine whether students can recognize the first sound of a word (Yeung et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref92">77</reflink>]). The original task demonstrated adequate reliability, with reported reliabilities ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 across different time points (Muter et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref93">48</reflink>]). It included 8 test items. All words were recorded by a native English speaker (the second author). Students were required to select the initial phoneme of the target word after hearing its sound. For example, when the sound of the word "dog" was played, the students were asked to identify the initial phoneme of this word (/d/). The current test differs from the original test only in the delivery medium, whereas the testing content remains identical. To minimize the possibility of students guessing the correct answer on the basis of the written form, corresponding pictures were provided for each tested word. The pen‐and‐paper‐based version of the phoneme identification task demonstrated adequate reliability, with a Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of 0.71, which is considered acceptable for such a short test (Edelsbrunner et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]). It also demonstrated acceptable predictive validity, as the test score significantly predicted students' overall English learning performance as measured by their final English test score (<emph>β</emph> = 0.329, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.11).</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-21">Phoneme Discrimination Task</hd> <p>Despite the importance of phoneme discrimination, few studies have developed tests specifically for EFL learners. Most existing phoneme discrimination tests are designed for use with English L1 speakers or bilingual populations (e.g., Rayes et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref95">57</reflink>]). Therefore, the current study developed a phoneme discrimination task to investigate which specific phonemes are the most difficult for Chinese students to differentiate. Consonant contrasts were selected on the basis of Miller and Nicely's ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref96">44</reflink>]) confusion matrices as well as Fu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref97">21</reflink>])'s study, which provided data on consonant comparisons that are frequently misheard in different conditions. Vowel contrasts were chosen following Peterson and Barney's ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref98">55</reflink>]), Lai's ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref99">33</reflink>]) and Fu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref100">21</reflink>])'s study, which examined vowel comparisons that are difficult to differentiate. In total, 17 consonant contrasts and 7 vowel contrasts were included for assessment (see Appendix A).</p> <p>A total of 78 items (34 questions) were developed. Ten of these questions consisted of two identical monosyllabic nonwords (e.g., <emph>pad</emph>—<emph>pad</emph>), and 24 consisted of two acoustically similar monosyllabic nonwords. For consonant pairs, the two acoustically similar words differed by only one phoneme (Bishop et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref101">7</reflink>]), either in the initial or final consonant (e.g., <emph>pad</emph>—<emph>tad</emph>). For vowel pairs, the seven selected vowel contrasts were assessed in the context of h_t (e.g., h/i/t—h /ɪ/t), following the framework of Lai ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref102">33</reflink>]) and Peterson and Barney ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref103">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>The sounds of all 78 items were recorded by a native English speaker (the second author). After listening to the recording of each contrast, students were required to determine whether the two words sounded identical by responding with "yes" if they were the same or "no" if they were different. The 34 questions were presented in random order. To address potential order effects, a counterbalanced design was utilized: Half of the participants completed the questions in the original sequence, whereas the other half completed a reordered version in which the final 17 questions were presented first. This self‐developed phoneme discrimination task demonstrated adequate reliability, with a Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of 0.74, which is considered acceptable (Edelsbrunner et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref104">17</reflink>]). It also demonstrated acceptable predictive validity, as the test score significantly predicted students' overall English learning performance as measured by their final English test score (<emph>β</emph> = 0.30, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, adjusted <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.09).</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-22">Data Analysis</hd> <p>To answer RQ1 and test H1 and H2 a–c, a one‐way between‐groups ANOVA was conducted, with participants' grade level (4th, 5th, and 6th grades) as the independent variable and total PA score as the dependent variable. Students' PA was measured by the total PA score, which consists of three sub‐dimensions: rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination. The effect size, partial eta‐squared (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups>), was calculated to estimate the proportion of variance in PA explained by grade level, with thresholds of 0.01 (small), 0.06 (medium), and 0.14 (large) (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref105">11</reflink>]; Lacobucci et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref106">32</reflink>]). Post hoc comparisons utilized Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Test to explore differences among grade levels. Tukey's HSD was selected because it controls the family error rate across multiple group comparisons (Nanda et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref107">49</reflink>]). In addition to the ANOVA, a regression analysis was also conducted as a supplement to the between‐groups analysis to further confirm the relationship between participants' grade level and their PA. Descriptive statistics analysis, ANOVA, and regression analysis were conducted in JASP (version 0.95.1).</p> <p>To address RQ2, the Two‐Parameter Logistic (2PL) model in Item Response Theory (IRT) was employed to investigate both the difficulty and discrimination parameters for each item in the phoneme discrimination task. IRT has been extensively utilized in a wide range of fields such as educational assessment, psychometric, and cognitive testing (van der Linden [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref108">71</reflink>]). It models the relationship between the latent ability of participants and the difficulty of the test (Lee [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref109">34</reflink>]) at an item level (van der Linden [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref110">71</reflink>]). In other words, IRT estimates individual ability(<emph>θ</emph>), item discrimination (<emph>a</emph>), and item difficulty (<emph>b</emph>) (Nguyen et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref111">51</reflink>]). In the simplest case, <emph>b</emph> is defined as the location on the latent ability (<emph>θ</emph>), where the possibility of correctly answering an item is 50%. A lower <emph>b</emph> value indicates that an item is easier and expected to be correctly answered by participants with lower ability (Ng et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref112">50</reflink>]). Parameter <emph>a</emph> refers to item discrimination, which describes the extent to which an item can differentiate participants with different ability levels (Ng et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref113">50</reflink>]). Items with larger discrimination values provide greater discrimination. In the context of the current study, each item in the phoneme discrimination task corresponds to a specific pair of phoneme contrasts. Estimating the difficulty (<emph>b</emph>) parameters of different items identifies which specific phoneme contrasts require higher participant ability to differentiate (i.e., more challenging), and the discrimination (<emph>a</emph>) parameters reveal how well each phoneme contrast differentiates participants with different levels of PA knowledge. IRT analysis was conducted in Stata (version 18).</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-23">Result</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225980-24">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>There was no missing data in the current study, as the tests were conducted during students' English classes as mandatory pre‐class activities.</p> <p>Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations (SD), and ranges for each test across grade levels. Overall, all tests demonstrated an adequate range of scores. The distributional properties of all tests across the 3 years were generally appropriate, with one exception: the phoneme identification test for Grade 6 students exhibited a notable negative skew. Specifically, the observed skewness (−2.16) exceeds the conventional cut‐off value commonly used by the field (|skewness| &lt; 2; Witte and Witte [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref114">76</reflink>]). However, given the methodological robustness of ANOVA against such deviations (Lix et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref115">40</reflink>]), this level of skewness is unlikely to significantly influence the outcomes of the parametric analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-25">One‐Way ANOVA and Supplement Regression Analysis: Relationship Between Students' Grade Level...</hd> <p>One‐way between‐groups ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in students' PA across grade levels, as measured by rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>, 811) = 44.60, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001. Effect size (<emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups>) indicated a large effect for rhyme detection (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref117">2</reflink>, 811) = 61.64, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.13), a small effect for phoneme identification (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>, 811) = 7.20, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.02), and a medium effect for discrimination (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref119">2</reflink>, 811) = 26.30, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.06) (Cohen [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref120">11</reflink>]). Linear regression further confirmed that students' grade level significantly predicted their PA total scores (<emph>β</emph> = 0.29, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001). The model accounts for 9% of the variance in PA total scores (<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.09). Additional regression analyses for rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination yielded results consistent with the ANOVA (see Table S1). This pattern remained unchanged after controlling for students' overall English performance (see Table S2).</p> <p>Post hoc comparisons using Tukey's HSD test showed that Grade 6 students significantly outperformed Grade 4 and Grade 5 students on rhyme detection, phoneme discrimination, and total phonological awareness. Grade 6 students significantly outperformed Grade 4 students on phoneme identification. Grade 5 students only significantly outperformed Grade 4 students on rhyme detection (see Table 3 for details).</p> <p>3 TABLE Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for post hoc comparisons.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Grade 6 vs. Grade 4&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Grade 6 vs. Grade 5&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Grade 5 vs. Grade 4&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Rhyme detection&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 2.05, [1.61, 2.48]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 0.89, [0.41, 1.36]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 1.16, [0.69, 1.63]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Phoneme identification&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 0.48, [0.18, 0.78]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 0.32, [0.18, 0.78]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 0.17, [&amp;#8722;0.16, 0.49]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Phoneme discrimination&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 1.49, [1.10, 2.86]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 2.29, [1.82, 3.75]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = &amp;#8722;0.80, [&amp;#8722;1.56, &amp;#8722;0.05]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Phonemic awareness&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 4.02, [3.27, 5.24]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 3.49, [2.63, 5.34]&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#916;M = 0.53, [&amp;#8722;0.62, 1.67]&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ** <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.01.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-26">Specific Phonemes That Are Difficult for Chinese Students to Learn</hd> <p>A two‐parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model was used to estimate the item discrimination (<emph>a</emph>) and difficulty (<emph>b</emph>) parameters for the 24 pairs of phoneme discrimination items. The 2PL model demonstrated a better model fit (AIC = 19378.11, BIC = 19603.80) compared to the one‐parameter logistic (1PL) model (AIC = 19587.78, BIC = 19705.33).</p> <p>The IRT analysis revealed substantial variability in both discrimination (<emph>a</emph> range: 0.15 to 1.64) and difficulty (<emph>b</emph> range: −0.39 to −3.67) parameters. Higher values of the discrimination parameter (<emph>a</emph>) indicate greater ability to distinguish between learners, whereas higher values of the difficulty parameter (<emph>b</emph>) indicate more difficult items (see Table 4 for full parameter estimates). Among the 24 items, the most difficult phoneme discrimination pairs were /ɔ/—/ʌ/ (<emph>b</emph> = −0.39), /v/—/ð/ (<emph>b</emph> = −0.87), and /s/—/z/ (<emph>b</emph> = −1.01).</p> <p>4 TABLE Full parameter estimates for IRT analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Discrimination&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Difficulty&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Discrimination&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Difficulty&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/&amp;#596;/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#652;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.43&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.39&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/s/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#643;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.59&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/v/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#240;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;0.89&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/&amp;#230;/&amp;#8212;/ei/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.60&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/s/&amp;#8212;/z/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/ei/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#603;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.64&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.61&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/d/&amp;#8212;/g/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/f/&amp;#8212;/v/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.39&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.64&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/b/&amp;#8212;/d/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.88&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/a&amp;#650;/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#596;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.46&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.65&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/i/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#618;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/f/&amp;#8212;/b/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.73&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.73&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/m/&amp;#8212;/n/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.31&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/u/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#650;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.94&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.73&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/&amp;#643;/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#658;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/p/&amp;#8212;/t/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.79&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/t/&amp;#8212;/k/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.54&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/z/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#658;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.25&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/&amp;#952;/&amp;#8212;/s/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/&amp;#230;/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#603;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.41&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/p/&amp;#8212;/k/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/&amp;#952;/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#240;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.23&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.94&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;/f/&amp;#8212;/&amp;#952;/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;1.52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;/b/&amp;#8212;/v/&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8722;3.67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225980-27">Discussion and Implications</hd> <p>The current study investigated the relationship between Chinese primary school students' grade level and their phonological awareness (PA), as well as the specific phonemes that are difficult for them to learn. Two research questions were addressed: whether students' grade level is significantly related to their PA (RQ1, H1, H2 a–c), and which English phoneme contrasts are most difficult for them (RQ2). Results suggest that students' grade level was significantly related to their PA skills, with the largest effect size in rhyme detection. Consonant contrasts (e.g., /v/—/ð/, /s/—/z/) posed greater difficulty than vowel contrasts for students to differentiate. The following section elaborates on the key findings of the current study, interprets their significance with existing theoretical frameworks, and discusses their implications for both research and educational practice in EFL/ESL contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-28">Developmental Pattern of Phonological Awareness in L2 Contexts</hd> <p>The present study extends prior research on PA by revealing a context‐specific developmental pattern among Chinese EFL learners, particularly in the unexpected differences in rhyme detection across grade levels. Aligning with the previous finding that learners' PA increases with grade level (Q1) (e.g., Ehri [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref121">18</reflink>]; Yeung et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref122">78</reflink>]), the current study disconfirmed the null Hypothesis (#1), with Grade 6 students significantly outperforming their younger counterparts in total PA score. A notable observation was the near‐ceiling performance among Grade 6 students, as suggested by the negative skew in their test scores. This finding supports the Bottom‐Up models of reading process (Amadi [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>]; Kamil and Pearson [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref124">30</reflink>]; Tsai and Huang [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref125">69</reflink>]) which conceptualizes PA as a fundamental reading skill that usually emerges in early school years (Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref126">31</reflink>]). For upper‐primary school students who have already acquired more advanced reading skills, PA testing and instruction may thus be insufficiently challenging. These findings align with the current research trend where most PA instruction focuses on younger learners, such as kindergarteners (Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref127">31</reflink>]; Yeung, 2012) or early primary (e.g., first grade) students (Coskun and Kara [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref128">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>A notable finding pertains to the different effect sizes across grades for the three measured PA subskills: rhyme detection exhibited a large effect size difference among the three grades, whereas phoneme identification revealed only a small effect size. This finding appears to contradict the hierarchical developmental model of native English speakers' PA (Anthony et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref129">4</reflink>]; Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref130">31</reflink>]), which states that PA development follows a continuum that moves from larger to smaller linguistic units (Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref131">31</reflink>]). According to this model, children detect onset and rime (e.g., recognizing that "cat" and "hat" are in the same rime) before they detect or manipulate individual phonemes (Anthony and Francis [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref132">3</reflink>]). Although this model was derived from longitudinal and trajectory research, it can be inferred that in a typical developmental pattern across different grade levels, rhyme detection as an earlier‐emerging skill would be expected to show minimal differences.</p> <p>In contrast, the current study found that Grade 6 students significantly outperformed Grade 4 and Grade 5 students on rhyme detection. Although this deviation from established models was initially surprising, it should not be taken as undermining the hierarchical development of PA subskills for native English speakers reported in previous research (Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref133">31</reflink>]; Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref134">61</reflink>]). Instead, these findings may reflect the profound influence of the L2 acquisition environment on the reshaping of PA developmental pattern, particularly for EFL learners whose PA development may be heavily influenced by their learning context (Linklater et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref135">38</reflink>]; López [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref136">42</reflink>]). To further contextualize this finding, it is crucial to consider the specific learning environment in which Chinese primary school students are immersed. The traditional hierarchical developmental model assumes continuous and natural language input (Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref137">31</reflink>]), which is a condition that is generally unmet in many EFL contexts. Unlike native English speakers, Chinese primary school students typically begin formal English instruction in Grade 3 (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref138">45</reflink>]) through a part‐to‐whole approach. These instructions emphasize isolated vowels such as /i/ and /æ/, and simple consonant‐vowel‐consonant (CVC, e.g., "cat") patterns, with incidental and embedded exposure to rhyme detection and manipulation delayed until Grade 5. Therefore, lower‐grade students receive limited exposure to rime structure, despite potential implicit recognition of phonological patterns. This pedagogical sequencing may delay automatic and unconscious rhyme recognition until upper grades, when cumulative input and explicit instruction converge to enhanced measurable rhyme awareness.</p> <p>These findings emphasize how structured EFL curricula reshape PA developmental patterns. The delayed mastery of rhyme detection observed in the EFL learners in this study implies that, in the absence of systematic and explicit PA instruction, the development of certain phonological skills may not follow the same trajectory as reported in L1 contexts. This divergence highlights the critical role of explicit and systematic PA instruction, as well as instructional sequencing in developing PA skills within L2 contexts. This implication does not present a contradiction to our previous finding on the relationship between age and students' overall PA, but rather provides an empirical example of how PA develops in a non‐native English context. Findings from the current study indicate that PA, as a general ability (measured by rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination), might show some development with increasing age and language exposure; the mastery of specific subskills (e.g., rhyme detection) is not parallel and might require instructional support. Even if an early and implicit sensitivity to rime structure may emerge naturally (Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref139">61</reflink>]), this sensitivity does not necessarily and automatically convert into a stable, measurable mastery of this skill. In other words, although Grade 4 and Grade 5 students may implicitly recognize rime patterns, their performance on formal measures remains limited until upper grades, when cumulative exposure and instruction converge. Therefore, our finding of a relatively weaker development in rhyme detection serves as a key piece of evidence for the critical role that systematic and explicit instruction can play in EFL contexts. The data suggest that although some PA subskills may develop spontaneously with age, others, like rhyme awareness, may be difficult for learners to achieve accurate results on a test without explicit instructional support.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-29">Optimizing Phonological Awareness Assessment and Instruction for Later Elementary School Stud...</hd> <p>The IRT analysis in the current study indicated that phoneme discrimination is a relatively simple task for students in Grade 4 to Grade 6 in the researched context. This finding resonates with previous studies highlighting the age‐related appropriateness of PA assessment tools (e.g., Skibbe et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref140">62</reflink>]; Vloedgraven and Verhoeven [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref141">72</reflink>]). Previous studies have underscored the necessity of enhancing the measurement precision of assessment tools. For example, Skibbe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref142">62</reflink>]) found that their Access to Literacy Assessment System‐Phonological Awareness (ATLAS‐PA) subtests were appropriate for children aged 3–7 years, implying their limited utility for children over 7 years old. Another compelling illustration of this principle is the evolution of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). The initial version, CTOPP‐1 (Wagner et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref143">74</reflink>]), revealed that some subtests were "below students' ability" for older children, indicating a ceiling effect. Therefore, CTOPP‐2 (Wagner et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref144">75</reflink>]) was developed with new norms and increased test difficulty for older age groups, extending its utility for individuals aged 4 to 24. These examples of iterative refinements demonstrate how psychometric feedback drives the "retirement" of assessment tools, implying that identifying the appropriate level of difficulty for different age groups is crucial (Kenner et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref145">31</reflink>]; Thomas and Sénéchal [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref146">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Consistent with previous studies, the current study suggests that effective educational practice necessitates careful consideration of assessment design and timing. For assessing PA in students in Grade 4 and above, more challenging tasks such as phoneme segmentation and blending (Skibbe et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref147">62</reflink>]; Thomas and Sénéchal [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref148">66</reflink>]) are likely more appropriate, as these tasks involve manipulation rather than simply identification. Conversely, phoneme discrimination, recognized as a foundational subskill (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref149">36</reflink>]), might be more suitable for first and second graders, as these grades constitute the "preparing level" in formal English education according to the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref150">45</reflink>]). Both existing studies and the current study caution against the ceiling effect that arises when overly simple tasks are employed for more advanced learners. Given the observed simplicity of phoneme discrimination for upper primary Chinese EFL learners, there is a clear need to adapt or develop PA assessment tools specifically for L2 contexts that can accurately measure advanced phonological skills and avoid ceiling effects.</p> <p>Having established the importance of age‐appropriate assessment, it is also important to consider how classroom‐based instruction aligns with learners' development. Although phoneme discrimination is important for early reading success (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref151">36</reflink>]), integrating it into current teaching for students in Grade 4 and above may not be as effective as for first and second graders, or for students with reading impairments (Thomas and Sénéchal [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref152">66</reflink>]). To effectively address the evolving needs for students, educators should leverage the theoretical framework of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD, Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref153">73</reflink>]). Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref154">73</reflink>]) described ZPD as the distance between a learner's current ability to solve problems independently and their potential ability when working with aids from adults or more skilled peers. This zone represents the optimal area for meaningful learning to occur. In English PA development for Grade 4 students, phoneme discrimination is a skill that is within their "can do unaided" zone. If a skill is mastered and falls within the "can do unaided" zone, instruction should then move to the "can do with aid" zone, which is the ZPD. As Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref155">73</reflink>]) metaphorically suggested, educators should focus on those functions "that are not mature yet, but are currently in the process of maturation, the functions will mature tomorrow." (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref156">73</reflink>], 38). In the context of English PA development for upper primary students, this might involve tasks connected with the manipulation of phonemes or phonics (Schuele and Boudreau [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref157">61</reflink>]), such as segmentation and blending, as these tasks directly influence reading success (Lewkowicz [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref158">35</reflink>]). Thus, a critical practical implication of applying the ZPD is conducting pre‐assessments to determine each student's current level and tailor instruction to their specific ZPD.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-30">Specific Phoneme Comparisons That Are Difficult for Chinese EFL Learners to Learn</hd> <p>Although the IRT analysis revealed that overall phoneme discrimination was relatively simple for students in Grade 4 and above, several specific phoneme contrasts posed significant challenges. Findings from the current study suggest that consonant contrasts were more difficult for students to discriminate than vowel contrasts. The Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref159">6</reflink>]; Sun and van Heuven [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref160">65</reflink>]; Tyler et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref161">70</reflink>]) could offer a robust theoretical framework for explaining these observed difficulties. The PAM posits that the success in discriminating non‐native phonological contrasts in a second language (L2) depends on how those L2 sounds are perceptually assimilated into the learners' native language (L1) phonological system (Best [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref162">6</reflink>]). Previous studies, on the basis of the PAM model, have investigated the perceptual assimilation of English by Chinese learners (e.g., Jia [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref163">28</reflink>]; Sun and van Heuven [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref164">65</reflink>]). However, to the authors' knowledge, there is limited research specifically investigating the perceptual assimilation of English consonants by Chinese learners.</p> <p>The current study revealed that consonant contrasts were more challenging for Chinese primary students to learn compared to vowel contrasts. Among the 24 contrasts included in the current study, the English phoneme pairs /v/—/ð/ and /s/—/z/ emerged as the two most difficult contrasts for these learners. According to the PAM, the /v/—/ð/ contrast is perceived as an Uncategorized‐Uncategorized (UU) pattern by Chinese learners, meaning neither sound maps effectively to any existing Chinese L1 phoneme. This lack of L2 equivalents for both sounds creates a significant perceptual ambiguity, making it difficult to differentiate between them. The /s/—/z/ contrast is perceived as the Uncategorized‐Categorized (UC) pattern (Sun and van Heuven [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref165">65</reflink>]; Tyler et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref166">70</reflink>]), where one sound (e.g., /s/) is assimilated to an L1 category, whereas the other (e.g., /z/) is not. Although the PAM generally predicts "very good" discrimination for UC patterns (Sun and van Heuven [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref167">65</reflink>]), the finding that /s/—/z/ was a difficult contrast in the current study presents a crucial nuance. This finding suggests that for Chinese learners, even if /s/ is categorized, the lack of a robust L1 equivalent for /z/ (which is often devoiced or absent as a distinct phoneme in some Chinese dialects) or insufficient phonetic distance between the two sounds in their perception can still lead to discrimination challenges (Hua [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref168">25</reflink>]; Zhang and Yin [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref169">79</reflink>]). It highlights that the degree of categorization and the phonetic proximity within the L1 system are critical factors influencing L2 perception, even for patterns generally predicted as easier. This finding contributes to a more refined understanding of L1—L2 phonetic interaction within the PAM, suggesting that specific phonetic characteristics of the L1 and L2 systems and their subtle interactions play a crucial role in actual discrimination difficulty.</p> <p>On the basis of these findings, the current study suggests that although phoneme discrimination might be a relatively easy task for students in Grade 4 and above, it is imperative for educators to focus instruction on specific contrasts that are not easily categorized or assimilated within learners' native language phonological system. The identification of specific difficult phoneme contrasts (e.g., /v/—/ð/ and /s/—/z/) and the PAM‐based explanations provide actionable implications for developing targeted instruction in EFL classrooms. If researchers could pinpoint which specific L2 phoneme contrasts are difficult for learners from a different L1 background, then pedagogical efforts can be precisely focused. Instead of general phonological instruction, educators can dedicate more time and target at contrasts such as /v/—/ð/ (where both sounds are novel in L1 system) and /s/—/z/ (where L1 interference creates subtle challenges despite one sound being well‐categorized). This implication could be generalized to all foreign language teaching contexts, as it highlights the importance of pre‐assessing the assimilation between L1 and L2, and tailoring instructional focus accordingly.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-31">Limitation and Future Direction</hd> <p>Although the current study has yielded several important findings, several limitations warrant acknowledgement. The first limitation concerns the exclusive focus on Grade 4–6, which precludes investigation of PA development in early primary students (i.e., Grade 1–3). Future studies could consider incorporating younger cohorts to map full developmental trajectories across elementary education.</p> <p>Secondly, the sampling was restricted to only one Guangdong primary school. Given empirical evidence that learners' dialect background influences phoneme discrimination (Liu [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref170">39</reflink>]), and considering most of the participants were Cantonese‐Mandarin bilinguals, findings from the current study might lack generalizability to monolingual Mandarin contexts or regions with other Chinese dialects (e.g., Min). Expanding recruitment to diverse linguistic regions (e.g., Sichuan and Fujian) would strengthen external validity.</p> <p>Another limitation concerns the learning background of participants. The current study did not investigate students' learning background, such as extracurricular learning experiences, prior phonological training experiences, home literacy environments, and their socioeconomic background. Previous studies have indicated that learners' background could influence their PA development even if they did not receive explicit and systematic instruction at school (Aleksić and Duruș [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref171">1</reflink>]; OECD [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref172">53</reflink>]). Therefore, future studies should collect and control for these covariates for further analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-32">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current study examined PA development among Chinese primary students in the absence of systematic and explicit PA instruction, as well as the specific phoneme contrasts that these learners found most challenging. Results indicated that PA skills are significantly related to learners' grade level, affirming the role of grade level in PA growth (Cunningham and Carroll [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref173">14</reflink>]). Ceiling effects observed on simpler tasks suggest a need for more difficult instructional activities. However, the developmental pattern found in the current study deviates from established L1 models. Although the current study employed a cross‐sectional design, which differs from the longitudinal approach of the original PA developmental model, its findings offer insights into how PA develops in an EFL context. The delayed mastery of rhyme detection, which could be attributed to the curriculum structure, reveals how instructional sequencing reshapes learners' PA developmental pathways. Although phoneme discrimination was generally mastered by Grade 4–6 students, specific consonant contrasts (e.g., /v/—/ð/, /s/—/z/) posed exceptional difficulty because of the role of L1‐L2 perceptual mismatches predicted by the PAM (Best [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref174">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>The abovementioned findings have practical implications for EFL and ESL contexts beyond China. First, they underscore that PA can develop through cumulative language exposure even when explicit instruction is limited, but that assessments must capture more complex subskills to avoid ceiling effects. Second, delayed rhyme detection highlights how curriculum design and instructional sequencing can reshape PA trajectories. Educators should be aware of the influences of curriculum structure and tailor teaching contents on the basis of students' needs to reach the ZPD. Third, consonant contrasts that do not exist or map poorly onto learners' L1 phonemic inventory warrant targeted practice, regardless of geographic or linguistic setting. To sum up, this study emphasizes the importance of (a) brief, scaffolded PA assessments that detect subskill gaps; (b) curriculum planning that balances implicit exposure with explicit lessons on key contrasts; and (c) adaptation of instructional content to learners' native language backgrounds. These principles can guide EFL/ESL programs worldwide in designing PA training that is both efficient and responsive to learners' specific needs.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-33">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the English teachers from Foshan Shunde Guipan Primary School: Haidi Qiu, Xiaoming Mai, Yuqing Peng, Qian He, Haitang Liang, Zejia Cai, and Huizan Liang. The authors also thank all the participants in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-34">Funding</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-35">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Hong Kong prior to participant recruitment (EA240315).</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-36">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-37">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>All original data, analyses completed in R as well as Stata, and research materials are available upon reasonable request to the first author.</p> <hd id="AN0193225980-38">A Appendix Phoneme Discrimination Test Items</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;sip&amp;#8212;sip&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;pid&amp;#8212;tid&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;pad&amp;#8212;kad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;fan&amp;#8212;than&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;top&amp;#8212;kop&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;bag&amp;#8212;bag&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;thigh&amp;#8212;thy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;sif&amp;#8212;sib&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;fat&amp;#8212;vat&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;hit&amp;#8212;h/&amp;#618;/t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;duck&amp;#8212;duck&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;thin&amp;#8212;sin&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;sop&amp;#8212;shop&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;h/ei/t&amp;#8212;h/&amp;#603;/t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;soo&amp;#8212;zoo&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;van&amp;#8212;van&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;cash&amp;#8212;ca/&amp;#230;/ge&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;fish&amp;#8212;fish&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;19&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;bog&amp;#8212;dog&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;boy&amp;#8212;voy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;21&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;moon&amp;#8212;moon&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;vank&amp;#8212;thank&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;23&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;lod&amp;#8212;log&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;h/u/t&amp;#8212;h/&amp;#650;/t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;zip&amp;#8212;zip&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;26&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;fiz&amp;#8212;fij&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;h/&amp;#230;/t&amp;#8212;h/&amp;#603;/t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;moon&amp;#8212;noon&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;walk&amp;#8212;walk&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;h/&amp;#230;/t&amp;#8212;h/ei/t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;31&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;boy&amp;#8212;boy&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;h/a&amp;#650;/t&amp;#8212;h/&amp;#596;/t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;33&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;her&amp;#8212;her&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;34&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&lt;p&gt;h/&amp;#594;/t&amp;#8212;h/&amp;#652;/t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1: Additional regression analyses for rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination.Table S2: Additional regression analyses for rhyme detection, phoneme identification, and phoneme discrimination after controlling for students' performance.</p> <ref id="AN0193225980-39"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aleksić, G., and N. M. Duruș. 2025. "Home Literacy Environment of Multilingual Preschool Children." Journal of Education &amp; Psychology117: 717–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000938.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amadi, E. A.2019. "Bottom‐Up Theory and Phonics Instruction: Implications for Beginning Reading." European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies1, no. 2: 89–99. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3228773.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anthony, J. L., and D. J. Francis. 2005. "Development of Phonological Awareness." Current Directions in Psychological Science14, no. 5: 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963‐7214.2005.00376.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref129" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anthony, J. L., C. J. Lonigan, K. Driscoll, B. M. Phillips, and S. R. Burgess. 2003. "Phonological Sensitivity: A Quasi‐Parallel Progression of Word Structure Units and Cognitive Operations." Reading Research Quarterly38, no. 4: 470–487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Au, W.2007. "High‐Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis." Educational Researcher36, no. 5: 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref59" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Best, C. T.1994. "The Emergence of Native‐Language Phonological Influences in Infants: A Perceptual Assimilation Model." In The Development of Speech Perception: The Transition From Speech Sounds to Spoken Words, edited by J. C. Goodman and H. C. Nusbaum, 167–224. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2387.003.0011journals.sagepub.com.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref101" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bishop, D. V., B. B. Brown, and J. Robson. 1990. "The Relationship Between Phoneme Discrimination, Speech Production, and Language Comprehension in Cerebral‐Palsied Individuals." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research33, no. 2: 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3302.210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref46" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carroll, J. M., M. J. Snowling, J. Stevenson, and C. Hulme. 2003. "The Development of Phonological Awareness in Preschool Children." Developmental Psychology39, no. 5: 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.39.5.913.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref76" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cassano, C. M., and J. A. Schickedanz. 2015. "An Examination of the Relations Between Oral Vocabulary and Phonological Awareness in Early Childhood." Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice64, no. 1: 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336915617608.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chung, W. L., and G. M. Bidelman. 2021. "Mandarin‐Speaking Preschoolers' Pitch Discrimination, Prosodic and Phonological Awareness, and Their Relation to Receptive Vocabulary and Reading Abilities." Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal34, no. 2: 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐020‐10075‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J.1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coskun, K., and C. Kara. 2022. "Impact of School Closure due to COVID‐19 on Phonemic Awareness of First‐Grade Primary School Children." Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9, no. 1: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599‐022‐01218‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins, J.1979. "Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children." Review of Educational Research49, no. 2: 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, A., and J. Carroll. 2011. "Age and Schooling Effects on Early Literacy and Phoneme Awareness." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology109, no. 2: 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.12.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeMars, C.2010. Item Response Theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377033.001.0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K., and K. B. Cartwright. 2021. "The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. Suppl 1: S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edelsbrunner, P. A., B. A. Simonsmeier, and M. Schneider. 2025. "The Cronbach's Alpha of Domain‐Specific Knowledge Tests Before and After Learning: A Meta‐Analysis of Published Studies." Educational Psychology Review37, no. 1: Article 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C.2005. "Learning to Read Words: Theory, Findings, and Issues." Scientific Studies of Reading9, no. 2: 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C.2022. "What Teachers Need to Know and Do to Teach Letter–Sounds, Phonemic Awareness, Word Reading, and Phonics." Reading Teacher76, no. 1: 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2095.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner, and A.‐G. Lang. 2009. "Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses." Behavior Research Methods41, no. 4: 1149–1160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu, Z., C. H. Ji, H. Weiss‐Krumm, G. Wang, and Y. Ma. 2020. "Chinese‐To‐English Phonetic Transfer of Chinese University Efl Students." Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics7, no. 1: 18–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O., and J. A. Kleifgen. 2010. Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs, and Practices for English Language Learners. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiou, G. P., and A. Giannakou. 2024. "Discrimination of Second Language Vowel Contrasts and the Role of Phonological Short‐Term Memory and Nonverbal Intelligence." Journal of Psycholinguistic Research53, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936‐024‐10038‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, T. L., and R. E. Hodges. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hua, C.2022. "Effects of Mixed Instruction on Chinese EFL Learners' Perception of Phonemic Contrasts." International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching60, no. 2: 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral‐2018‐0243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huo, S.2017. "Influence of Language Immersion and Phonological‐Based Instruction on Literacy Skills of English Language Learners in Xi'an, China." Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huxham, M., F. Campbell, and J. Westwood. 2012. "Oral Versus Written Assessments: A Test of Student Performance and Attitudes." Assessment &amp; Evaluation in Higher Education37, no. 1: 125–136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jia, Z.2017. Analysis of Difficulties in English Pronunciation Learning for Chinese Students [中国学生英语语音学习之难点分析] Overseas English [海外英语]. Retrieved July 6, 2025. https://mall.cnki.net/magazine/article/HWYY201713019.htm (Original work published in Chinese).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Justi, C. N. G., F. G. Henriques, and F. R. D. R. Justi. 2021. "The Dimensionality of Phonological Awareness Among Brazilian Portuguese‐Speaking Children: A Longitudinal Study." Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica34: 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155‐021‐00192‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamil, M. L., and P. D. Pearson. 1979. "Theory and Practice in Teaching Reading." New York University Education Quarterly10, no. 2: 10–16. https://bit.ly/3xXVETF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenner, B. B., N. P. Terry, A. H. Friehling, and L. L. Namy. 2017. "Phonemic Awareness Development in 2.5‐ and 3.5‐Year‐Old Children: An Examination of Emergent, Receptive Knowledge and Skills." Reading and Writing30, no. 7: 1575–1594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐017‐9738‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lacobucci, D., D. L. Popovich, S. Moon, and S. Román. 2023. "How to Calculate, Use, and Report Variance Explained Effect Size Indices and Not Die Trying." Journal of Consumer Psychology33, no. 1: 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1292.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai, Y. H.2010. "English Vowel Discrimination and Assimilation by Chinese‐Speaking Learners of English." Concentric: Studies in Linguistics36, no. 2: 157–182. https://doi.org/10.6241/concentric.ling.201007_36(2).0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Y.2019. "Estimating Student Ability and Problem Difficulty Using Item Response Theory (IRT) and TrueSkill." Information Discovery and Delivery47, no. 2: 67–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewkowicz, N. K.1980. "Phonemic Awareness Training: What to Teach and How to Teach It." Journal of Educational Psychology72, no. 5: 686–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.72.5.686.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, M., S. Jerasa, J. C. Frijters, and E. Geva. 2024. "Using Phoneme Discrimination to Help Emergent Bilinguals With Reading Disabilities Acquire New Sounds." Teaching Exceptional Children56, no. 5: 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231173685.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liang, L., and L. K. Fryer. 2024. "Phonological Instruction in East Asian EFL Learning: A Scoping Review." System123: 103336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103336.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linklater, D. L., R. E. O'Connor, and G. J. Palardy. 2009. "Kindergarten Literacy Assessment of English Only and English Language Learner Students: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of Three Phonemic Awareness Measures." Journal of School Psychology47, no. 6: 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.08.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, T.2021. "The Influence of Dialect Environment on Second Language Acquisition and Countermeasures." Curriculum and Teaching Methodology4: 32–46. https://doi.org/10.23977/curtm.2021.040307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lix, L. M., J. C. Keselman, and H. J. Keselman. 1996. "Consequences of Assumption Violations Revisited: A Quantitative Review of Alternatives to the One‐Way Analysis of Variance F Test." Review of Educational Research66, no. 4: 579–619. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004579.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Llombart‐Huesca, A.2019. "Phonological Awareness and Spelling of Spanish Vowels in Spanish Heritage Language Learners." Hispanic Studies Review4: 80–97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López, L. M.2012. "Assessing the Phonological Skills of Bilingual Children From Preschool Through Kindergarten: Developmental Progression and Cross‐Language Transfer." Journal of Research in Childhood Education26, no. 4: 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.711800.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melby‐Lervåg, M., S.‐A. H. Lyster, and C. Hulme. 2012. "Phonological Skills and Their Role in Learning to Read: A Meta‐Analytic Review." Psychological Bulletin138, no. 2: 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, G. A., and P. E. Nicely. 1955. "An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America27, no. 2: 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907526.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. 2022. Compulsory Education English Curriculum Standard [义务教育英语课程标准]. Beijing Normal University Press. <ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202204/t20220420%5f619921.html">http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202204/t20220420%5f619921.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muñoz, K., M. F. Valenzuela, and P. Orellana. 2018. "Phonological Awareness Instruction: A Program Training Design for Low‐Income Children." International Journal of Educational Research87: 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2‐17.02.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy Odo, D.2021. "A Meta‐Analysis of the Effect of Phonological Awareness and/or Phonics Instruction on Word and Pseudo Word Reading of English as an L2." SAGE Open11, no. 4: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211059168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muter, V., C. Hulme, M. Snowling, and S. Taylor. 1998. "Segmentation, Not Rhyming, Predicts Early Progress in Learning to Read." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology71, no. 1: 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nanda, A., B. B. Mohapatra, A. P. K. Mahapatra, A. P. K. Mahapatra, and A. P. K. Mahapatra. 2021. "Multiple Comparison Test by Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD): Do the Confident Level Control Type I Error." International Journal of Statistics and Applied Mathematics6, no. 1: 59–65. https://doi.org/10.22271/maths.2021.v6.i1a.636.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, I. H. Y., K. Y. Lee, J. H. Lam, C. A. van Hasselt, and M. C. Tong. 2016. "An Application of Item Response Theory and the Rasch Model in Speech Recognition Test Materials." American Journal of Audiology25, no. 2: 142–152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen, T. H., H. R. Han, M. T. Kim, and K. S. Chan. 2014. "An Introduction to Item Response Theory for Patient‐Reported Outcome Measurement." Patient: Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research7, no. 1: 23–35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nosek, B. A., C. R. Ebersole, A. C. DeHaven, and D. T. Mellor. 2018. "The Preregistration Revolution." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, no. 11: 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2019. "An OECD Learning Framework 2030." In The Future of Education and Labor (Arts, Research, Innovation and Society), edited by G. Bast, E. G. Carayannis, and D. F. J. Campbell, 23–35. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐26068‐2_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., M. G. McKeown, and L. Kucan. 2010. "Decoding, Vocabulary, and Comprehension." In Bringing Reading Research to Life, edited by M. G. McKeown and L. Kucan. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48‐0406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, G. E., and H. L. Barney. 1952. "Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America24, no. 2: 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906875.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfungst, O.1907. Clever Hans (The Horse of Mr. von Osten): A Contribution to Experimental Animal and Human Psychology. Henry Holt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayes, H., G. Al‐Malky, and D. Vickers. 2021. "The Development of a Paediatric Phoneme Discrimination Test for Arabic Phonemic Contrasts." Audiology Research11, no. 2: 150–166. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres11020014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehfeld, D. M., M. Kirkpatrick, N. O'Guinn, and R. Renbarger. 2022. "A Meta‐Analysis of Phonemic Awareness Instruction Provided to Children Suspected of Having a Reading Disability." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools53, no. 4: 1177–1201. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS‐21‐00160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaughency, E., K. Linney, J. Carroll, S. Das, J. Riordan, and E. Reese. 2023. "Tender Shoots: A Parent‐Mediated Randomized Controlled Trial With Preschool Children Benefits Beginning Reading 1 Year Later." Reading Research Quarterly58, no. 3: 450–470.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schroeders, U., and T. Gnambs. 2024. "Sample Size Planning in Item Response Theory: A Tutorial." Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science8, no. 1: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251314798.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuele, C. M., and D. Boudreau. 2008. "Phonological Awareness Intervention: Beyond the Basics." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools39, no. 1: 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161‐1461(2008/002).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skibbe, L. E., R. P. Bowles, S. Goodwin, G. A. Troia, and H. Konishi. 2020. "The Access to Literacy Assessment System for Phonological Awareness: An Adaptive Measure of Phonological Awareness Appropriate for Children With Speech and/or Language Impairment." Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools51, no. 4: 1124–1138. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS‐19‐00006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, B. E., M. B. Pacheco, and M. Khorosheva. 2021. "Emergent Bilingual Students and Digital Multimodal Composition: A Systematic Review of Research in Secondary Classrooms." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. 1: 33–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> So, C. K., and C. T. Best. 2010. "Cross‐Language Perception of Non‐Native Tonal Contrasts: Effects of Native Phonological and Phonetic Influences." Language and Speech53, no. 2: 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909357156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, L., and V. J. van Heuven. 2007. "Perceptual Assimilation of English Vowels by Chinese Listeners: Can Native‐Language Interference Be Predicted?" Linguistics in the Netherlands24, no. 1: 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.24.15sun.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, E., and M. Sénéchal. 2004. "Long‐Term Association Between Articulation Quality and Phoneme Sensitivity: A Study From Age 3 to Age 8." Applied PsychoLinguistics25, no. 4: 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, X., M. M. Chiu, and S. X. Tong. 2023. "Synergetic Effects of Phonological Awareness, Vocabulary, and Word Reading on Bilingual Children's Reading Comprehension: A Three‐Year Study." Contemporary Educational Psychology73: 102153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tran, N. G., X. V. Ha, and N. H. Tran. 2023. "EFL Reformed Curriculum in Vietnam: An Understanding of Teachers' Cognitions and Classroom Practices." RELC Journal54, no. 1: 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211043670.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsai, X., and Y. Huang. 2023. "Bottom‐Up Theory and Phonics Instruction: Implications for Beginning Reading." European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies5, no. 3: 1855.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyler, M. D., C. T. Best, A. Faber, and A. G. Levitt. 2014. "Perceptual Assimilation and Discrimination of Non‐Native Vowel Contrasts." Phonetica71, no. 1: 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Linden, W. J., ed. 2018. Handbook of Item Response Theory (3‐Volume Set). Chapman &amp; Hall/CRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vloedgraven, J. M. T., and L. Verhoeven. 2009. "The Nature of Phonological Awareness Throughout the Elementary Grades: An Item Response Theory Perspective." Learning and Individual Differences19, no. 2: 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L.1978. "Interaction Between Learning and Development." In Readings on the Development of Children, edited by M. Gauvain and M. Cole, 34–40. Scientific American Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, R. K., J. K. Torgesen, and C. A. Rashotte. 1999. "Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)."Pro‐Ed. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.4.3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, R. K., J. K. Torgesen, C. A. Rashotte, and N. A. Pearson. 2013. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing–Second Edition (CTOPP‐2). Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witte, R. S., and J. S. Witte. 2017. Statistics. 11th ed. John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeung, S. S., L. S. Siegel, and C. K. Chan. 2013. "Effects of a Phonological Awareness Program on English Reading and Spelling Among Hong Kong Chinese ESL Children." Reading and Writing26: 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐012‐9383‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeung, S. S. S., M. L. Ng, S. Qiao, and A. Tsang. 2020. "Effects of Explicit L2 Vocabulary Instruction on Developing Kindergarten Children's Target and General Vocabulary and Phonological Awareness." Reading and Writing33: 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐019‐09982‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, F., and P. Yin. 2009. "A Study of Pronunciation Problems of English Learners in China." Asian Social Science5, no. 6: 141–146. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v5n6p141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, K., X. Sun, Z. Flores‐Gaona, et al. 2024. "Cross‐Linguistic Transfer in Bilingual Children's Phonological and Morphological Awareness Skills: A Longitudinal Perspective." Bilingualism: Language and Cognition28: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728924000439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhong, B., and Y. Kang. 2021. "Chinese EFL Teachers' Perception and Practice of Phonics Instruction." Journal of Language Teaching and Research12, no. 6: 990–999. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1206.15.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lishi Liang; Luke K. Fryer and Shunyi Guo</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref170"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1503759 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Phonological Awareness in Chinese EFL: Age-Related Development and Phoneme-Specific Challenges – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lishi+Liang%22">Lishi Liang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3513-9051">0009-0000-3513-9051</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Luke+K%2E+Fryer%22">Luke K. Fryer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6250-5950">0000-0001-6250-5950</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shunyi+Guo%22">Shunyi Guo</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(2). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 14 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+Awareness%22">Phonological Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Program+Divisions%22">Instructional Program Divisions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonemes%22">Phonemes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rhyme%22">Rhyme</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/rrq.70115 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The necessity of phonological awareness (PA) instruction has consistently been emphasized in EFL and ESL contexts. However, many EFL/ESL settings follow highly structured, exam-oriented curricula that leave little room for such instruction. This imbalance between research emphasis and classroom reality highlights the need to investigate whether PA instruction is necessary, that is, do learners' PA skills develop spontaneously with age? Another unsolved issue in EFL/ESL contexts concerns which specific phoneme contrasts are most challenging to differentiate, as systematic research on this question remains limited. This study investigates whether learners' grade level relates to their PA and identifies which specific phoneme contrasts pose the greatest difficulty. A total of 995 fourth- to sixth-grade students completed a paper-and-pencil PA test. Results revealed that PA performance significantly improved with grade level, with the largest effect size in rhyme detection. Consonant contrasts (e.g., /v/--/ð/, /s/--/z/) revealed greater difficulty than vowel contrasts. Findings suggest that although some PA skills may develop naturally with age, grade-appropriate PA instruction is crucial for cultivating skills that might be hard to spontaneously acquire, such as rhyme detection. The results also underscore the importance of assessing and considering learners' linguistic background, including the influence of Chinese dialects, to target specific phoneme difficulties. Because of the diversity of Chinese dialects, the findings might primarily generalize to speakers of a specific dialect. Nevertheless, undertaken in a Chinese context, this study also offers insights for EFL/ESL educators on optimizing PA development within structured curricula and contributes to theoretical understandings of cross-linguistic speech perception. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1503759 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503759 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/rrq.70115 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Phonological Awareness Type: general – SubjectFull: English (Second Language) Type: general – SubjectFull: Grade 4 Type: general – SubjectFull: Grade 5 Type: general – SubjectFull: Grade 6 Type: general – SubjectFull: Age Differences Type: general – SubjectFull: Instructional Program Divisions Type: general – SubjectFull: Skill Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Chinese Type: general – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Phonemes Type: general – SubjectFull: Rhyme Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Phonological Awareness in Chinese EFL: Age-Related Development and Phoneme-Specific Challenges Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lishi Liang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Luke K. Fryer – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Shunyi Guo IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0034-0553 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1936-2722 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 61 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
