Craig, you miss John's point; students who do well on a SAT grammar question aren't necessarily better writers, but your question is as guilty--if not more so?  His point reveals your hypocrisy in criticizing SAT questions.  Be honest, it is hard--perhaps impossible--to write a multiple choice grammar question that reveals writing eloquence.  At least, most SAT questions can expose errors in skill.


On Jan 15, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

> John,
>    You seem to be making very thoughtful decisions about how to help your
> students. If there's an important hoop, you have to take it seriously,
> but you don't need to be subservient to it.
>   When I look at SAT sample questions, I find about one in four
> perplexing. I think they want students to "intuit" a better sentence,
> but they also want those intuitions to match the intuitions of the test
> makers, which, I have to admit, are not always the same as mine. I see
> the same dynamic at work with writing teachers who rewrite students'
> sentences in ways that sometimes seem arbitrary or idiosyncratic. In
> effect, they want the students to share their intuitions, to write like
> them, without reflection on how difficult (impossible?) that might be.
> I think this is one symptom of an overall loss of knowledge about
> language, and you're right: the students affected the most will be
> those whose background is different from the testmakers. Testing
> explicit knowledge would level the playing field. All students would be
> on equal footing.
>   As much as possible, I want students to own their own writing. They
> should be free to break conventions if they can do so knowing what
> those conventions are. They should make choices that they feel best
> convey their own evolving intentions. Knowledge of conventions and
> knowledge of rhetorical options are more important than behavior.
> 
> Craig
> 
>> 
> 
> Craig,
>> 
>> I see another side of this issue every day – students who do very well on
>> SAT questions aren't necessarily better writers for all their awareness (
>> I hesitate to use knowledge) of SAT error patterns. And then the
>> insinuation is made, yet again, that grammar instruction doesn't improve
>> student writing. Your point about conceptualization is well taken; so,
>> while the SAT test doesn't necessarily approach that aspect, it's more
>> upon me as a teacher of that test-taking population to approach essential
>> skill sets with a larger picture in mind – the rhetorical function of
>> grammar in a particular phrase, paragraph, etc. We should always hope for
>> transfer of knowledge within and across disciplines, and as we all know
>> the SAT isn't constructed to demonstrate that type of thinking, I find it
>> a matter of classroom practice.
>> 
>> The SAT and related test-prep methodology and practices manage to keep
>> students tracked and stratified, which to me is of even greater concern
>> (and a matter for a different thread). Those who do well have paid to
>> learn how to do well, or at least better than the average test taker. It's
>> that student who also can afford to pay to actually attend the school he
>> or she was "smart enough" to get into. Let's be courageous enough to admit
>> that "school" is a glorified class system of haves and have nots and that
>> Education has done a fine job in keeping those distinctions in proper
>> working order.
>> 
>> But back to the change in curriculum addressed by the article, we can hope
>> it moves beyond correctness and into the dynamics of language. I was
>> pleasantly surprised to watch my young nephew, in the 4th grade, learn
>> about predicates and adverb phrases explicitly (while I have 11th grade
>> students who arrive unable explain nouns, verbs, prepositions, fragments,
>> etc.) ... but again, it's a step on a greater staircase. If we want others
>> (let's start with NCTE, yes?) to believe that this particular, specific
>> type of knowledge is valuable and can in fact improve student writing -
>> which I fully believe it can - then the rest is up to good teaching.
>> Purposeful, explicit, critical, rigorous, and ongoing instruction at that.
>> 
>> Thanks...
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>>> 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/
>>> 
>> 
>> John Chorazy
>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
>> Pequannock Township High School
>> 
>> Nulla dies sine linea.
>> 
>> 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/