Publications:

We have published (and are in the process of publishing) articles for Teachers and Researchers. We first share the publications related to Monster, PI and then suggest other publications that also provide relevant information.

Skip to the following sections:

Publications of Our Monster, PI Work - for Teachers

Publications of Our Monster, PI Work - for Researchers

Publications of Prior Morphology Work - for Teachers

Publications of Prior Morphology Work - for Researchers


Publications of Our Monster, PI Work - for Teachers:


Goodwin, A., Petscher, Y., Reynolds, D., Lantos, T., Hughes, K., & Jones, S. (2020). Monster, PI: Assessment to guide instruction. In K. Ganske (Ed.), Mindful of words: Spelling and Vocabulary explorations, 2nd Edition (in press).  New York: The Guilford Press. (upcoming pages)

Description:

This study focuses on the morphology part of Monster, PI and describes 1) what the morphology part of Monster PI assesses and how it was developed and 2) what it found and some links to assessment and instruction in the classroom. This is a great piece if you want to understand more about the Morphology section of Monster, PI and it can be used in classrooms.


Goodwin, A.P., Petscher, Y., Jones, S., McFadden, S., Reynolds, D., & Lantos, T. (2019). The monster in the classroom: Assessing language to inform instruction. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Abstract:

The current study describes Monster, PI which is an app-based, gamified assessment that measures language skills (knowledge of morphology, vocabulary, and syntax) of 5th-8th graders and provides teachers with interpretable score reports to drive instruction that improves vocabulary, reading, and writing abilities. Specifically, we describe why an assessment of language is important to include, the components of language that are assessed by Monster, PI, and how Monster, PI uses gamification to add enjoyment and motivation to the assessment experience.  We then explain how to use Monster, PI to inform instructional decisions, specifically explaining the overall instructional framework, what each score means, and examples of instruction that link to each area assessed by Monster, PI.  Links to Common Core Standards are included. We conclude with sharing teachers’ feedback on the assessment and how they used it to support instruction in their classrooms.  


Publications of Our Monster, PI Work - for Researchers:


Goodwin, A., Petscher, Y., Reynolds, D., Lantos, T., Gould, S., & Tock, J. (2018). When complexity is your friend: Modeling the complex problem space of vocabulary. Education Sciences, 8(4), 169.

Description:

This is a paper that describes ways of thinking about how to deal with the complexity of multidimensional constructs like language, morphology, and in this case, vocabulary.


In Preparation: Main Validation Paper

Goodwin & Petscher et al., (in preparation). Adolescent Written Language: Models, Assessment, and Links to Reading.

Abstract:

Various models have highlighted the complexity of language. Building on foundational ideas regarding three key aspects of language, our study contributes to the literature by 1) exploring broader conceptions of morphology, vocabulary, and syntax, 2) operationalizing this theoretical model into a gamified, standardized assessment of written language for fifth to eighth middle school students entitled Monster, PI, and 3) uncovering further evidence regarding the relationship between written language and standardized reading comprehension via this assessment. Findings across grades show that morphology and vocabulary are best fit by bifactor models that identify performance overall and on specific skills within the constructs. Skills include identification of units of meaning, use of suffixes, wordsolving, and reading/spelling morphologically complex words for morphology and definition, synonym/antonym, analogy, and polysemy for vocabulary. Syntax, though, is best fit unidimensionally. Next, Monster, PI produced reliable and valid scores suggesting written language can effectively be operationalized via this theoretical model. Lastly, performance on Monster, PI explained more than 50% of variance in standardized reading, suggesting operationalizing written language via Monster, PI can provide meaningful understandings of the relationship between written language and reading comprehension. Specifically, considering just a subset of a construct, like identification of units of meaning, explained significantly less variance in reading comprehension highlighting the importance of considering these broader constructs. Implications indicate a model of written language where component areas are considered broadly and contributions to reading comprehension are explored via general performance on components as well as skill level performance is important for future work.


In Preparation: Validation Paper for Morphology Part of Monster, PI and Exploration of Performance with Students with Low Levels of Vocabulary Knowledge

Goodwin & Petscher et al., (in preparation). Monster, PI: Morphological Assessment and Prediction for Middle School Students including Students with Low Levels of Vocabulary Knowledge. Manuscript being prepared for a special issue currently titled Morphological Awareness: A Key Factor in Language-Literacy Success for Academic Achievement which is expected to be published July 2020 in Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools (LSHSS).

Abstract:

The current study takes a practical and theoretically grounded look at assessment of morphological knowledge and its potential for instructional guidance. We consider performance for 3250 fifth thru eighth graders on a gamified, computer adaptive measure of morphological knowledge entitled Monster, PI. We also explore links to standardized reading achievement for an analytic sample of 1140 students, investigating differences for the 184 students showing low levels of vocabulary knowledge. Related to validation, results suggest that based on three years of data collection and piloting of 15 morphological measures and 491 items, the final assessment that uses 7 measures and 181 items assesses morphological awareness in a valid and reliable way, both for the general sample and the low-level vocabulary students. A bifactor model provides scores for four instructionally-malleable morphological skills:1) identification of units of meaning; 2) use of suffixes to gain syntactic information; 3) word-solving; and 4) reading and spelling morphologically complex words. For the full sample, regression models showed that each morphological skill predicted additional standardized reading variance, indicating the importance of the skills to reading achievement. Moderator regression models showed significant interactions for low vocabulary students in how use of suffixes, word-solving, and morphological reading/spelling supported standardized reading comprehension.  Given the challenges low vocabulary students have with semantic information, using morphemes to build syntactic knowledge and foster reading and spelling of morphologically complex words were particularly supportive, suggesting the compensatory role of these morphological skills. In contrast, word-solving had a negative effect on general reading for these low vocabulary students. Implications for theory, research and practice are discussed.


Prior Morphology Research

We also have some great work out on morphology.  Contact a team member to gain access to any of the following articles (copyright prevents us from posting the article, but allows us to individually email a copy).


Publications of Prior Morphology Work - for Teachers:


Goodwin, A. P. & Perkins, J. (2015). Word Detectives: Morphological Instruction That Supports Academic Language. The Reading Teacher, 68(7), 510–523.


Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting Two and Two Together: Middle School Students’ Morphological Problem‐Solving Strategies For Unknown Words. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541-553.


Goodwin, A., Lipsky, M., & Ahn, S. (2012). Word Detectives: Using units of meaning to support literacy. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 461-470. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01069


Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom.The reading teacher, 61(2), 134-144.


Publications of Prior Morphology Work - for Researchers:


Goodwin, A. P., Petscher, Y., Carlisle, J. F., & Mitchell, A. M. (in press). Exploring the dimensionality of morphological knowledge for adolescent readers. Research in Reading. doi 10.1111/1467-9817.12064


Goodwin, A. P.(in press). Effectiveness of word solving: Integrating morphological problem solving within comprehension instruction for middle school students. Reading and Writing: An International Journal. doi 10.1007/s11145-015-9581-0


Goodwin, A. P., Gilbert, J. K., & Cho, S. J. (2013). Morphological contributions to adolescent word reading: An item response approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 39-60. doi: 10.1002/rrq.037


Carlisle, J. F., Goodwin, A. P., Stone, C. A., Silliman, E. R., Ehren, B. J., & Wallach, G. P. (2013). Morphemes matter: How morphological knowledge contributes to reading and writing. Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders, 265-282.