Yes, Brenton. I am in a position to influence those who prepare these provincial tests. Hence, my need to accumulate as much data as possible for my argument. Also, I need to prove to myself that my views. which come from working with students system, is supported by eduational research. Thank you muchly for the offer, but at this time I do not need printed proov. I just need to have clear reasons for suggesting that this item be dropped from the provincial testing. I am dealing with reasonable, concerned educators who will listen to reason and your e-mail has given some very clear reasons to revisit this test item and I thank you very much for that. Susan MacDonald. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brenton D. Faber" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Sentence combining (long/mundane) > Sure, sentence combining as a rote exercise has little if any > value -- but Hongxing is right that academic (or any form of > complex) discourse rarely comes naturally. Rather than simply > deride people who seem to be looking for ways to teach this > we should be able to offer some constructive advice. > > Susan--are you in a position where you can suggest alternative > exercises or problems? As mundane as these disussions can get, > they ultimately have more relevance for policy and for what > happens in the general public. > > Could you note that the exercises seem to address important > issues (summary, taxonomy, coherence, and relevance) > but that "sentence combining" as an exercise has not > been proven to teach these skills for 3 reasons: > > 1. It does not address concision > Christopher Turk in "Do You Write Impressively?" _Bulletin of > the British Ecological Society_ 9(3): 5-10 (1978) found that > concision was not only linked to ease of reading and > appropriate style but that scientific writers with a more > concise style were perceived to be "more competent" than those > with a wordy style. (See Huckin and Olsen _Technical Writing > and Professional Communication_ (p. 478-479). Simply combining > information does not teach students to be precise or thoughtful > writers. In fact, it encourages wordiness and sloppy organization > because it does not allow a writer to use punctuation, bullets, > lists, numbering sequences, etc. -- characteristics of > excellent scientific writing. > > 2. Sentence combining does not teach appropriate taxonomy. > Successful Academic writing uses sophisticated ways to > order its information. Linguists often talk about > "given and new" structures (Gillian Brown and George Yule, > _Discourse Analysis_ p.153-155) and characteristically, > writers will order given information before introducing > new information. Since all of the information in > sentence combining is "new" the exercise is artificial > and does not test the ways a student would actually > order information. In addition, the exercise is > too broad and unfocused to specify parallel text > structures, light vs. heavy noun phrases, and because > the writers can not include "new ideas" they will be > dissuaded from introducing conjunctions, signal words, > or other forms of cohesion -- the very things the > exercises seem to want to test. > > In addition, because the exercise is devoid of context > the writer is unable to accurately judge the most > appropriate organizing structure. > > 3. There is no audience focus > Combining teaches writers to inflate their prose rather > than write for the needs of a specific audience. The > questions do not even include the audience the writer > is addressing. > > Alternatives: > > Other than abandoning the entire test (probably not an > option) as an alternative I'd suggest: > > 1. Take a random scattering of data and organize it > for three different audiences. > > 2. Edit existing paragraphs/sentences. > > I hope this helps. If you need more info on other references > (time is an issue) please let me know, or perhaps others > on the list could help. As well, I could photocopy > stuff if you need it. > > good luck, > > Brenton Faber > Clarkson University > [log in to unmask] > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to > [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties, > write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask] > > For the list archives and information about the organization, > the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at > http://www.StThomasU.ca/inkshed/ > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties, write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask] For the list archives and information about the organization, the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at http://www.StThomasU.ca/inkshed/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-