The SAT-II writing test will be going away, more or less merged into the
current SAT-I.
AFAIK, they haven't released the detailed plan for the test structure
(i.e., how many of each type of question), but the question types and
content should be similar to the current writing test. If anyone on the
list is a member of the content committee and can share details with us,
I, for one, would really appreciate it. Here's what I've garnered from
examining the currently available material:
The general structure for the SAT-I Writing section will be
- a 25-minute essay on a persuasive topic. Students are given a fairly
generic statement (e.g., "The more you know, the better you are.") and
asked to take a position on it. The current test has a 20-minute essay,
and the topic is often more narrative than persuasive in focus (e.g.,
complete the statement "I have never felt better than when ____"). We'll
see if the test makers really stick to the persuasive mode or not.
- a 25-minute multiple choice section, with the question types you
mentioned. The current test has a 40-minute section of this type. (The
writing section on the PSAT is 25 minutes, now, though.)
In my experience, the multiple-choice section as currently structured
always covers the same handfull of topics over and over. Apart from a
few usage questions, it pretty much ignores the esoteric refinements, as
well as anything on which different usage books contradict one another.
They expect students to identify:
- subject-verb agreement mismatches when the subject is a complex NP
(esp. when it has modifying 'of' phrases that don't match the number of
the head noun), or in inverted structures. They don't, however, bother
with mismatched 'or' phrases (e.g., 'Either a W2 or two pay stubs
is?/are? required')
- pronoun-antecedent mismatches.
- inappropriate tense shifts, including with the modals will/would and
can/could
- run-ons and fragments caused by inappropriate punctuation
- dangling or misplaced modifiers
- lack of parallel structure
- illogical comparisons
- usage problems, mostly incorrect word choice (e.g., idiomatically
incorrect complement, morphologically related word with the wrong
meaning ['respective' for 'respectful', etc.])
In terms of improving sentences, students are expected, in addition to
finding the best fix to the above problems, to recognize stylistic
desiderata, especially brevity.
Paragraph revision questions incorporate the above, and also ask
students to combine separate sentences, to pick the best sentence to add
to link paragraphs, to find the best order for various ideas, and so on.
Most of the stuff that doesn't appear in the other two question types as
well tends to boil down to issues of information flow.
Other items may appear from time to time, but they are much lower
frequency. All of the above appear on every test.
By implication, the test also expects that student can recognize as
correct certain features that either appear predominantly in writing
(formal phrasings that may sound 'wierd' to those with little exposure
to formal written English) or look stange when singled out for close
examination.
Karl Hagen
Department of English
Mount St. Mary's College
Haussamen, Brock wrote:
>I thank Tim for the excellent explanation also. I would only add that Hillocks' account actually covered a great many studies, many of which did show a correlation between grammar teaching of some kind and positive changes in writing, but when it came to those he considered sufficiently reliable to include in the analysis, the number shrunk to a handfull. In addition, I always wonder about what that "little" means whenever someone writes "little or no."
>
>I agree with Christine that the SAT test could be discussed. Christine, I'm looking at the samples available on the Educational Testing Service website for the SAT II test and they show sections on Identifying Sentence Error, Improving Sentences, and Improving Paragraphs, together with the holistically graded writing sample. Could you clarify how the test will be changing, and what the Grammar section will include, if you know? As to the current test, it seems to me it's focus on grammar and mechanics is not extreme: there are no questions about parts of speech, spelling and capitalization are not issues in the multiple choice questions, and punctuation comes up only in the context of sentence structure and meaning.
>
>Brock
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Christine Gray
> Sent: Sat 1/31/2004 3:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Hillocks??
>
>
>
> Tim, thank you for clarifying the Hillocks' research for me. I had never heard of them.
>
> I posted here about two weeks ago that the new SAT will have a section on writing and a section on only grammar. I was surprised that no one commented on that; perhaps everyone already knows about these parts of the revised SAT.
>
> Again, thank you,
>
> Christine Gray, in beautiful downtown Baltimore
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Hadley, Tim
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 3:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Hillocks??
>
> Christine,
>
> I'll answer, in case Brock doesn't see your post. George Hillocks (there is only one of him) published _Research on Written Composition_ in 1986. It was a meta-analysis of many aspects of the teaching of writing, including the grammar issue. Hillocks attempted to collect studies where it was possible to calculate an "effect size," thus (supposedly) standarizing the results of many studies done under different circumstances, with different populations and sample sizes, etc. The idea was to be able to compare these studies as "apples to apples" and see what results emerged.
>
> Hillocks's scope, analysis, and conclusions were much more thorough than those of Braddock, et al. in 1963, and some of his insights in certain areas of writing instruction were very valuable. Unfortunately, his negative conclusions about the effectiveness of direct grammar instruction were marred by a number of problems, including a small number of studies (5), imprecise definitions (he didn't include "sentence combining" with grammar), etc. His summary was, "One of the strongest findings of this study . . . is that grammar study has little or no effect on the improvement of writing. The same is true for emphasis on mechanics and correctness in writing" (225). Needless to say, many people (in and out of ATEG) did not agree with Hillocks's conclusions.
>
> I am very interested in the call that Brock has alerted us to because this topic (the efficacy of explicit grammar teaching) is precisely the focus of my dissertation (currently in progress) at Texas Tech. I'll be following up on this, and I hope others will also either respond to the call or share information and insights.
>
> Tim Hadley
> Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
> Texas Tech University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christine Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sat 1/31/2004 1:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Hillocks??
>
>
> Brock,
> Who are the Hillocks and what are/were their simplistic conclusions?
> Christine Gray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Haussamen, Brock
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Call for papers on grammar research
>
> The May issue of the journal Research in the Teaching of English will include a call for literature reviews that explore research topics that need re-visiting and that hold significance in terms of educational policy and practice. One example will be the efficacy of explicit grammar teaching, especially to linguistically and culturally diverse populations.
>
> Considering how heavily English education is saddled with the Hillocks' simplistic conclusions about grammar teaching from nearly 20 years ago, this call seems like a good opportunity to try to right the record and review newer studies. Anyone interested in further information, beyond the call in the journal itself, can contact co-editor Anne DiPardo at [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> .
>
> Brock Haussamen
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
