Susan,
    I have no problem at all with an objective test. My sense is that the
SAT does not ask for explicit knowledge precisely because it is not
taught.
Here's a kind of question you might ask in a multiple choice format:
"Which of the following include an adverbial prepositional phrase as
sentence opener?"
a) At home, I could always find a caring parent.
b) I could always find a caring parent when I got home.
c) When I got home, I could always find a caring parent.
d) A caring parent was there whenever I got home.

    The answer, of course, would be a.
   Objective tests of this nature are easy to design. You decide what it
is important to know and then design questions that measure it
directly.

Craig
>


 Craig and others who dislike the SAT test,
>
> What are the kinds of things high school students should know about
> grammar that could be tested in an objective, pre-college test?  Can you
> give some examples of good multiple choice question that would measure
> explicit grammar knowledge that you think is important and relevant?
>
> Or is the very idea of an objective test the problem?
>
> Susan
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>> Karl,
>>    It's interesting that they still equate grammar with "conventions"
>> and
>> with error, though they open up with more sophisticated terminology.
>> The SAT test doesn't measure explicit knowledge about language; it
>> simply asks you to find (or intuit) the best choice among options.
>> There isn't, for example, a need to identify a structure as a
>> prepositional phrase or modal auxiliary. No need to handle the "in
>> early morning dawn" type of question we have been discussing other
>> than to choose it as an alternative. It's interesting that they also
>> separate proofreading and grammar from "more conceptual" skills,
>> clearly not even aware that other views of grammar are possible. (One
>> core concept of cognitive grammar--grammar is conceptualization.)They
>> still don't seem to be making the judgment that knowledge about
>> language is valuable in itself.
>>   This is pretty much true of the National Governor's Standards as well.
>> They are a bit better, but still old school in their construal of
>> grammar. Whether you are for it or against it, it still seems to be
>> focused on correctness.
>>>
>> Craig
>>
>> I'm surprised that no one has brought this up. It appears Texas schools
>>> are going to get a lot more explicit grammatical instruction.
>>>
>>> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-grammar_15met.ART.State.Edition1.14a5f2e.html
>>>
>>> When Texas was arguing about new curriculum standards, I heard a lot
>>> about the fight over the science standards, but nothing at all about
>>> English standards.
>>>
>>> Are there any Texas educators on the list who would care to comment
>>> about what difference these changes are making in the trenches?
>>>
>>> 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/
>

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/