Developmental Trajectories of Phonological and Morphological Awareness: Implications for Literacy Instruction

The Science of Reading (SoR) has brought attention to the cognitive-linguistic foundations of literacy development, emphasizing that learning to read is not a natural process but one that depends on specific underlying skills that must be explicitly supported (Castles et al., 2018). Drawing on the theory that children’s word reading involves the interaction of phonological, orthographic, and semantic processing (Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989), cognitive-linguistic skills (including phonological awareness and morphological awareness) have been supported by a growing body of research demonstrating their predictive contributions to reading and spelling across languages and scripts (McBride et al., 2022). Importantly, these cognitive-linguistic skills do not emerge suddenly at the onset of formal schooling. Research consistently demonstrates that children begin developing phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and other literacy-related competencies before they receive formal reading instruction across diverse cultures (Carroll et al., 2003; Diamanti et al., 2017). Understanding how children develop these cognitive-linguistic skills is key to implementing effective literacy teaching.

However, one of the critical challenges for educators is recognizing not only which skills matter but also when and how to support them in ways that align with children’s developmental trajectories. Misalignment between instructional targets and children’s developmental readiness undermines the potential of even well-designed explicit instruction. Consider a kindergarten teacher who jumps straight to phoneme deletion tasks (e.g., “Say smile without /s/”) with children who have only just begun recognizing syllable boundaries. Or a first-grade classroom where students are asked to analyze the relationship between ‘electric’ and ‘electricity’ before they have mastered regular inflections like ‘-ed’ and ‘-s’. In both cases, the instructional target overshoots the child’s current developmental level, leading to frustration rather than learning.

Therefore, this brief explores the development of cognitive-linguistic skills focusing on phonological awareness and morphological awareness, which contribute to word reading and later reading comprehension across various cultures (Ruan et al., 2018). Although skills at different developmental levels can be taught concurrently, children benefit from having some foundation at one level before progressing to the next (Anthony et al., 2003). Recognizing these progressions equips educators to provide instruction that is both evidence-based and developmentally appropriate.

How does phonological awareness develop?

Phonological awareness develops in a predictable progression, and understanding this progression helps educators sequence instruction effectively (Anthony & Francis, 2005). The sequence of development is:

1. Large units to small units: Children first become aware of larger chunks of sound, such as words and syllables, before they can attend to smaller ones like onset-rime and individual phonemes (Anthony & Francis, 2005; Treiman & Zukowski, 2013). Most preschoolers can clap out the syllables in ‘butterfly’ long before they can isolate the /b/ at the beginning. This is why rhyming games and syllable-counting activities are a natural starting point for young children, while phoneme-level tasks belong later in the sequence.
2. Simple words to Complex words: The structural complexity of words also shapes phonological awareness development. Children first segment shorter, simpler words before progressing to longer ones (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). For example, monosyllabic words (e.g., bike) come first, followed by two-syllable compound words (e.g., cupcake), then two-syllable non-compound words (e.g., menu), and finally multisyllabic words (e.g., tomato). Similarly, simpler syllable structures are mastered before complex ones (McBride-Chang, 1995; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). Segmenting and blending CV and VC words (e.g., no, up) develops before CVC words (e.g., cat, map), which in turn precedes the ability to handle words with consonant clusters such as CCVC or CVCC (e.g., small, jump). For example, it is easier for a child to hear the /s/ in sun than in ‘stop’, because the /s/ in a consonant cluster gets blended with the following consonant.
3. From beginning sounds to ending sounds: Within phoneme-level awareness, children typically become aware of initial sounds before final sounds (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). For example, even though a child can confidently tell that ‘dog’ starts with /d/, he can struggle to identify the final sound in ‘bed’. This positional progression means that instruction targeting beginning sounds precedes work on final sounds.

How does morphological awareness develop?

Similarly, morphological awareness develops along a predictable trajectory shaped by the type of morphological knowledge and the complexity of the morphological relationship involved (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). These stages are:

1. From inflections and compounds to derivations: Awareness of inflectional and compound morphology develops earlier than awareness of derivational morphology (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Awareness of inflectional morphology, such as regular plural markers (cat+s) or past tense (walk+ed), emerges early and most inflectional principles are acquired by the early elementary grades (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Similarly, even three-year-olds can produce compound nouns to name novel objects. For example, when shown a shoe with fish on it, they might call it a fish shoe (Nicoladis, 2003). Derivational morphology, on the other hand, develops later. Children usually do not develop explicit awareness of the structure and meaning of derived forms until third or fourth grade (Kuo & Anderson, 2006), and such awareness continues to develop through the elementary years and beyond.
2. From regular and transparent forms to irregular and opaque ones: Within each type of morphology, the rate of acquisition is influenced by the productivity of word-formation rules, the semantic transparency of the complex forms, and the degree of phonological alteration involved (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Regular, transparent forms are acquired before irregular or opaque ones. For example, regular inflections like ‘walk+ed’ and ‘cat+s’ are acquired before irregular forms like ‘went’ and ‘mice’. Similarly, phonologically transparent derivations in which the base word retains its pronunciation (e.g., teach → teacher) are easier than a phonological or orthographic shift (e.g., nature → natural) (Carlisle, 2000).

Common developmental principles

Beyond the specific progressions described above, phonological awareness and morphological awareness share common developmental principles that cut across both domains.

1. From recognizing to manipulating. In both domains, children first show an implicit, intuitive awareness before they develop the ability to manipulate sounds and morphemes. In phonological awareness, detection and matching tasks are the earliest to develop, followed by blending, then segmentation, with manipulation tasks such as deletion being the most advanced (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). In morphological awareness, a similar pattern has been observed, particularly in derivational morphology, where recognition tasks, such as judgment tasks, develop before production tasks (Diamanti et al., 2018).
2. From familiar and frequent forms to less common ones. In both domains, children’s awareness develops earlier for forms that are well known and frequently encountered. In phonological awareness, children perform better on tasks using words that are already part of their oral vocabulary (Metsala, 1999). As children’s vocabularies grow, their phonological representations become increasingly segmented, making it easier to access the internal sound structure of familiar words first. In morphological awareness, children more readily recognize and manipulate high-frequency morphemes and familiar word forms before extending their awareness to less common or irregular patterns (Carlisle, 2000).

Considering the importance of phonological awareness and morphological awareness for children’s literacy development, understanding the developmental trajectories of these skills has crucial implications for literacy instruction. Children benefit most when teachers accurately understand how each child develops these skills, as this allows teachers to provide developmentally appropriate scaffolding. Such understanding may also reduce possible frustration experienced by both children and teachers when implementing literacy instruction, thereby supporting more effective learning and more positive instructional experiences.

References

Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development of phonological awareness. Current directions in psychological Science, 14(5), 255-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00376.x

Anthony, J., Lonigan, C., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B., & Burgess, S. (2003). Phonological sensitivity: A quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive operation. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 470–487.  https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.4.3

Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604

Carroll, J. M., Snowling, M. J., Stevenson, J., & Hulme, C. (2003). The development of phonological awareness in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.913

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Diamanti, V., Benaki, A., Mouzaki, A., Ralli, A., Antoniou, F., Papaioannou, S., & Protopapas, A. (2018). Development of early morphological awareness in Greek: Epilinguistic versus metalinguistic and inflectional versus derivational awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(3), 545-567. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000522

Diamanti, V., Mouzaki, A., Ralli, A., Antoniou, F., Papaioannou, S., & Protopapas, A. (2017). Preschool phonological and morphological awareness as longitudinal predictors of early reading and spelling development in Greek. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2039. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02039

Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3

McBride, C., Pan, D. J., & Mohseni, F. (2022). Reading and writing words: A cross-linguistic perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(2), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1920595

McBride-Chang, C. (1995). What is phonological awareness? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 179.

Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.3

Nicoladis, E. (2003). What compound nouns mean to preschool children. Brain and Language, 84(1), 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00519-9

Ruan, Y., Georgiou, G. K., Song, S., Li, Y., & Shu, H. (2018). Does writing system influence the association between phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and reading? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000216

Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/002)

Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523

Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (2013). Levels of phonological awareness. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 67-84). Routledge.