I know I’m late to the conversation, but – @xiggi and @marvin100 – IME with students, it’s both/and, not either/or. (1) Marvin has a point that lack of comprehension often points to vocab weakness (and what I observe more is that they’re not aware they don’t know some of the words, sometimes; they fool themselves that they do, or they’re convinced that “smart people (they flatter themselves) figure out [word meaning] from the context” – except for the problem that they don’t know roots (having not taken Latin or Greek), and more shockingly they have often forgotten, or never knew, English suffixes differentiating nouns from verbs from adjectives. (Don’t know that -ity is a noun ending; unbelievable.) And therefore they cannot figure it out from the context.
(2) But xiggi is correct IME that the act of reading is done lazily and ineptly, so even when/if they have memorized vocab lists, they are neither understanding the structure of the sentence (a grammar & a reading problem), nor are they understanding meaning through sequence. (The next sentence builds on or explains the previous sentence.)
Much of the reading failures are based on modern faults and deficiencies: (1) little to no experience with sustained reading; (2) impatience with complete texts and the sequential reading process – due partly to Internet reading habits; (3) false expectations attached to skimming and other kinds of partial reading.
One of my students is like a human memory machine, but it was not until I showed him that he was mistaking the part for the whole (when reading) that his practice test scores dramatically increased.
@epiphany - I’m not sure how that’s both/and. In fact, what you’re prescribing is exactly what I believe and enact every day. At no point have I argued that reading skills are unnecessary. As a long-term test prep veteran, I spend the vast majority of my time teaching reading skills.
I’m referring to the earlier debate of a few days ago you were having with xiggi. My remark directly addressed that. I realize that you made some concessions, but it sounded to me as if you were coming down more on the side of vocab, xiggi more on the side of reading. I think it’s equal, that’s all. If you’re saying it’s equal, then I agree with you. That just didn’t sound to be your emphasis.
@xiggi It is not confusing. I rather feel it is inscrutable. What do you exactly mean by patterns and direct context? For example, let’s say one is working through the ten Blue Book tests. What would you tell him/her to do? And if there are patterns, why can’t they be universal where one may tell them to everyone and…boom, everyone now knows the specific patterns? Or are they individual patterns that differ from one person to another? After all, what could those patterns be (context, type of sentence, transitions, compare/contrast) and could they even help when there are words one doesn’t know what they mean nor he/she has any way to know what they mean? Those are just some questions that I can’t figure out answers for while highlighting/strikethroughing keywords and answers in 3 online SAT tests I proactively went through with your method.
Nothing wrong with it, depending on: (1) which dictionary; (2) whether the student reads the complete definition as well as all the definitions and understands all the contexts for those (or is willing to investigate those distinctions further).
Most of my students typically read partial definitions (omitting the “ands,” the “ors,” and the “especially in the sense of”). Diction relates to nuance, setting, and connotation, not to some minimalist, single denotation, and most 21st century students are too lazy and uncurious when it comes to word meanings. I wish more students would do what my siblings and I did in our childhoods: include dictionary and encyclopedia reading. I know that some elementary-grade homeschooled students do read dictionaries – yes, today.
Becambridge, was my point really inscrutable in this paragraph:
Seriously, is that really “impossible to understand or interpret”
How could I possibly make it clearer? For the past 12 years, I have written about preparing for the test by sticking to the context. What does that mean in terms of learning “words” that appear in previous tests. Some advocate studying or memorizing lists of words that might (or not) be culled from the previous tests. Such lists do contain a suggested interpretation that might reflect the use in the past test. “My” context is to use those prior tests and work through them proactively. In the beginning that means attempting to answer the questions and … recognize the construction of the test and HOW the test writers think. That is what I call “patterns.” The test, being a standardized one, has to be consistent in its construction. After a careful reading of a stack of tests, one could and should start to recognize the types of questions and how they are presented.
The debate here is about HOW to acquire a better SAT specific vocabulary. Marvin suggest to spend time preparing or studying list of words. I suggest that one can accomplish the same through working through the tests directly.
What you are introducing is a debate about what constitutes proper CR techniques. It is a different subject – albeit related to the SAT. Fwiw, I do not believe that there are universal techniques that work for everyone. It does not happen in CR any more than it does in the Math sections. There are techniques that work for some and not for others, as everyone comes to the test with individual aptitudes and concentration capabilities.
Where does a suggestion that “When you cannot choose between 2 choices, chances are that you eliminated the correct one” fit? That is a generic advice that does not apply to everyone! There are a number of authors who spent time presenting CR techniques. Think Erika M and Mike Barrett among others. Think noitaprep and SATReason and others right here on CC.
I have never pretended that my approach to the test amounts to a full-blown guide. I have always tried to simplify the process to help the students who had limited or ample time and had different backgrounds.
I am not sure how I could make any of it clearer. In the end, what is right (and this for sure) is the price I charge for my opinions.