The SAT announces another big change

On January 25, 2022, the College Board announced a significant change to the SAT. The test will be administered digitally beginning in March of 2024. The PSAT/NMSQT will be administered digitally beginning in the fall of 2023. You can read the official College Board announcement here: https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/digital-sat-brings-student-friendly-changes-test-experience 

On January 28, 2022, TPAPT, a national consortium of tutors and college admissions professionals organized an informal meeting to discuss the change. 

 Here is some of the information shared at the meeting: 

The digital version of the test will not simply be the current test delivered digitally. It will be a computer adaptive test (or CAT). Each student will see a unique set of questions. Which questions a student sees later in the test will be determined by how well the student did early in the test. There are multiple ways to approach computer adaptive testing, and we have been told that the revised SAT will use the method that is currently being used for the GRE - the test many students need to apply to graduate school. In this method, the test material is delivered in "chunks", or groups of questions. Student performance in the first chunk will determined whether the second chunk will be easy, medium, or difficult. Whereas the scaled score on the current SAT counts all questions as being equal in value, the scaled score on the new version will be affected by the difficulty of the questions in the second chunk. 

A calculator of some kind will be allowed on all math questions. (The current version has a calculator-inactive section.) The rumor that was shared is that students would have access to DESMOS - an online graphing calculator app - during the test. If true, this would represent an improvement for most students since DESMOS has become the primary graphing calculator used in schools, supplanting the TI-84. 

The reading section will be combined with the writing and language section. It is unclear what this will look like. 

Some questions were raised to which we do not yet have answers: 

Will the scores on the revised test have a normal curve similar to that of the current test? More specifically, would a particular individual score on the new test be roughly equivalent to the same score on the current test? Is that even a goal that they will consider as they design and write the new test items and as they set the scaling algorithms? 

Will the scaling algorithm be transparent?  In the past, the College Board has released tests along with the scaling table for that test.  The scaling algorithm was clearly spelled out:  so many correct answers = this particular scaled score.  If every individual student has a unique set of test questions, we likely won't have any released tests.  They've promised "practice material" on Khan Academy, which will likely include full simulations of practice tests along with a scaled score at the end, but will they share the scaling algorithm?  

Will the students be issued scratch paper? 

Pilot testing went well - both students and proctors were pleased. However, what will happen as they scale up and have to contend with the inevitable technology snafus? 

Will the two chunks of verbal questions be given back to back, or will there be a chunk of math in between? 

How will this affect the advanced math student who hasn't seen the material in the first math chunk since middle school? Will that prevent them from being presented the difficult math questions that reflect their current course work? 

I'm sure we'll be getting more information over the coming months, and those of us who are gearing up to prepare students for this new challenge will be watching for the promised prep material!

What SAT/ACT prep books are still on my shelf? (SAT edition)

With the transition to the “new” SAT and the somewhat less comprehensive changes to the ACT, my prep resources have undergone a change.  Some books have been culled out or replaced with updated editions, and several new titles have been added.  This is the SAT edition.  Click here for the ACT edition.

Here are the winners:

For the overall test:

The Official SAT Study Guide, 2018 edition

The only parts I ever use are the practice tests.  These are available for free online, but you would need to print them out.  Depending on your printer, it might be cheaper to buy the book.  This was not true of last year’s book, which only contained 4 tests.

For SAT reading comprehension:

The Complete Guide to SAT Reading, Third Edition by Erica Meltzer

This book, which anchored my SAT shelf in the “olden days”, has been completely overhauled for the revised SAT.  It’s really all you need.

For SAT writing and language:

The Ultimate Guide to SAT Grammar, Fourth Edition by Erica Meltzer

Again, this guide was a staple prior to the SAT overhaul.  Ms. Meltzer was proactive in getting an overhauled guide to the test-prep community as quickly as possible.  That haste meant that there were a number of errors.  With this edition, those problems have been dealt with.  I do supplement with the ACT version (see below) for some students.

For SAT Math:

I really haven’t settled on just one.  Which book I recommend varies from student to student, and, while I generally have students acquire just one, a given students will end up using most of these while working with me, even if it’s just one set of exercises.

Kaplan’s Math Workbook for the New SAT

This is the one I use with students who are currently scoring less than 600 on an SAT or PSAT.  I like the way it starts off with linear equations and systems, and I like the way it divides the problems into easy, medium and hard so that we can work on the problems that will appear at the beginning of the test and avoid frustrating the student with those end-of-test problems that he or she will likely guess on anyway.

The College Panda SAT Math: Advanced Guide and Workbook by Nielson Phu

This book is first off the shelf for students who are already scoring 600+ and would like to score 700+.  It has a TON of problems in it, and I really like the treatment of probability and statistics which is one of the main areas those students need to concentrate on.

PWN the SAT Math Guide, Fourth Edition by Mike McClenathan

A previous edition anchored my SAT math section prior to the SAT revision.  Mr. McClenathan  helpfully published this quickly, but subsequent released tests have added some insight that indicates this book is a little off-the-mark.  I’m hoping for an update soon.  It is designed for students who have always done really well in math class, and are then surprised and disappointed by a less-than-stellar math SAT score.  As I tell my students, the problems go from zero to sixty in under 6 seconds.  There’s not a lot of easy or medium practice in there.

A Guide to the Math SAT by Richard Corn

There are some excellent problems in here, but I don’t pull it out quite as often because the book is weakest in the areas in which my students need the most help.   That wouldn’t necessarily be true for everyone, though – my students tend to be clustered at a handful of schools, so they share a lot of characteristics.

The losers:

Top 50 Skills for a Top Score by Brian Leaf

I used this one for certain students back in the day, but the updated version for the new SAT just doesn’t cut it.

Dr. John Chung’s New SAT Math, 2016

The bulk of this book is 10 complete practice tests.  Back when this book came out, we only had 4 official practice tests and extras were appreciated even if they weren’t quite as good as the official tests.  Now that we have more official tests, I don’t use this anymore.

Hello, Founding Documents!

When revisions to the SAT were first announced, there were several changes proposed for the reading section.  One of the changes was the elimination of the fill-in-the-blank vocabulary section that started off each reading section.  I thought that was an interesting choice at the time because, as unpopular as the vocab questions were, testing vocabulary is an easy way to assess reading comprehension.  Vocabulary knowledge is a reliable predictor of reading comprehension and vocab questions are a lot easier to write.  In addition, testing vocabulary, as opposed to passage-based testing, allows more questions to be asked in the time allotted, which should allow for finer differentiation among test-takers.

The reasoning offered at the time was that being familiar with "obscure" vocabulary did not predict success in college.  In the very same announcement, Daniel Coleman said that the reading passages would include "the founding documents."  At this point, the test-prep tutoring community responded, "Ummm.....have you actually READ the founding documents??"  Talk about obscure vocabulary.  I sat down and compiled a list of obscure or antiquated words from the Constitution ALONE that numbered in the hundreds.  Then the practice PSAT was posted without any founding documents in it, and I figured the College Board members had come to their senses.

Shortly after that, ETS posted four practice SAT tests.  I took the first one, and then I got busy.  REALLY busy.  It's been a crazy summer in test-prep land.  All the tutors I know have been swamped.

The first practice SAT had a pretty easy reading section.  Lovely.  There was plenty of time, and the most difficult section had a passage that had clearly been written for grownups but wasn't ridiculously challenging.  I didn't take tests 3 and 4 until this week, and HOLY CRAP!!  Hello, founding documents!

So there is a lot we could say here about the wisdom of including founding documents in some tests, but not others, including that fact that this would be a perfectly valid reason for avoiding the revised SAT.  However, if you are going to take it, you need to show up prepared to interpret writing that is 300 years old, obscure vocabulary and all.

Impressions on the new practice PSAT

A few days ago the College Board posted a new PSAT practice test.  This is the practice test for the redesigned PSAT to be given in October 2015.  It is also a glimpse of what the redesigned SAT might look like. 

There has been a great deal of speculation about the redesigned test.   A number of people have opined that the new test would be an “ACT clone.”  I, myself, have speculated that the new test would be designed as more of a high school exit exam than a college entrance exam.  Quite a few pundits have pointed out that the SAT was losing market share to the ACT and thought that the redesign might be an effort to gain that share back.

Upon looking over the test, I am now prepared to make the following statements:

The writing section IS barely distinguishable from the writing portion of the ACT.  Otherwise, this test is in no way an ACT clone.  On the other hand, I do feel that this test represents a fundamental shift in purpose.

There are a number of possible purposes for giving a standardized exam.  (This would be as opposed to a teacher-made assessment.)  Here are a few:

• To document student learning (or lack thereof) of particular skills and concepts
• To distinguish among (or rank) students
• To drive the curriculum*

Prior to 2015, the PSAT’s fundamental purpose has been a balance of the first two items.  As the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test it has been used to distinguish top students from the pack, and it has documented whether or not students have a grasp of particular skills and concepts.  It has NOT been used to drive the curriculum...until now.  In my opinion, several of the changes were specifically designed to have an impact on the nature and content of classroom instruction.

One of the elements of Common Core language arts is a focus on having students read critically.  In an effort to have the students respond to what the author actually said – as opposed to how they feel about what they think the author said – students are being asked to point to pieces of the text as “evidence.”  In the PSAT critical reading portion, students are asked to choose the best evidence for almost every question.  Now I’m not a language arts teacher, and I don’t have any special critical reading or psychometric expertise.  However, it seems to me that this is about the same as asking the same question twice.  In other words, if you correctly answer the original question, then the answer to the “evidence” follow up is trivial.  If you missed the original question it would be impossible.  Will there be some kind of scoring mechanism that uses this question-pairing to determine when the correct answer was obtained by guessing?  Maybe.  It is more likely an attempt to make sure teachers require their students to give evidence in class.

Here is another example from the math section.  Months ago, when the sample questions were released, I noticed that some of the questions were much longer and more involved.  This represents a distinct shift.  Up until now I have told my top students, “If you are more than 3 steps into an algebra process, you probably missed something.”  One of my main criticisms of some of the test prep books out there has been that too many of the math questions can ONLY be solved with the application of tedious algebraic steps and are thus not representative of the real thing.  However, this has changed with the PSAT practice test.  It’s interesting.  If I’m a professor of mathematics or engineering I’m interested in multiple different aspects of their math skills.  I want them to have a solid grasp of the concepts, good number sense, AND I want them to be able to keep track of what they are doing through a long problem that requires many steps and sub-steps to solve.

Up until now, the major college entrance exams did a decent job of testing the first two. (The SAT was better than the ACT in my opinion.) They really haven’t attempted to do the third.  This is largely because a multiple choice or single final answer exam format is a TERRIBLE way to assess that third skill.  If the student’s answer is incorrect, you don’t know if he really can’t negotiate the process or if he just made a silly error in the middle.  Graded homework and teacher-made assessments where partial credit is given are much better means of determining whether or not the student can handle a long problem.  Both of those would be reflected in the students’ grades.  By trying to test it in this format, you add no new information.  The only reason I can come up with to include problems like this is to encourage math teachers to have students practice longer, more complex problems.

When the College Board first announced that the SAT would be re-designed, an admissions officer at a small, selective school wondered in an online forum, “Will the rSAT do a better job of distinguishing among students at the top end of the spectrum?”  This was what she was hoping for.  Other users of the forum predicted that it would not.  To do so would require a test with a wider standard deviation, and a large contingent of the (math-challenged) public believes that a wide standard deviation is inherently “unfair.”  In fact, the speculation was that the new test would do a worse job of highlighting differences among students.  Given that the redesigned test appears to have abandoned that goal altogether in favor of driving the curriculum, I’d say that admissions officers at selective schools will be plumb out of luck.

The practice PSAT is posted here: https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat-suite-assessments/practice/practice-tests

* You may be wondering what it means to have a test “drive the curriculum.”  Let’s look at an extreme example.  Throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s North Carolina had a state writing assessment.  In fourth, eighth and tenth grades students had to write a timed essay and send it off to be scored by specially trained “experts.”  After several years of dismal results, some statisticians called “foul.”  They pointed out that the scoring methods were severely flawed, and thus that the scores were ultimately meaningless.  (By the way, the scoring methods used to score the ACT and SAT essays have some of the same issues.)  The state’s surprising response?  “Yes, we know.”  Students (and by extension their teachers and parents) suffered through this test for YEARS.  Why?  Because if there’s a writing test – even a flawed one - teachers will spend time teaching writing.  The average amount of classroom time spent on writing instruction quadrupled.  Prior to the test, some teachers had spent ZERO time teaching writing.

To pre-order the practice book for the redesigned SAT:

The new SAT: the Essay

This is the third post in a series on the redesigned SAT.  The first two were on vocabulary and the math section, respectively.

It was interesting to see what the news media chose to focus on when they did their bullet points for the redesigned SAT.  As headlines and/or sound-bites, many chose variations on “The new SAT will drop the essay requirement!”  That they would trumpet this particular change is understandable.  The SAT essay has been widely loathed since it was first introduced in 2005.

Criticisms of the 25-minute essay section abound:  Writing a coherent essay in such a short period of time on a random prompt that was sprung on you at the last second is a very artificial task.  How often does that come up?  Even college blue-book exams – the closest real-world situation - will have essay questions specifically on the course material.  And don’t get people started on how they are scored.  Anecdotes abound about how kids who can afford coaches are at an enormous advantage because coaches teach you how to use really bad writing to get a top score.  Dropping the essay requirement was popular and a good marketing move.

However, "drop the essay requirement" may be misleading.  The SAT still has an essay.  However, now the style of essay has changed and it is "optional."  Changing the style of the essay is a good move. The new style is much more the kind of writing that you might expect to do in the workplace:  Take this data and write a quick position summary.  ETS has already test-driven this essay style on the GRE, so they should be able to implement it on the SAT with few hiccups.

As far as being "optional" goes, the more selective colleges will "require" it, just as they now "require" the "optional" ACT essay.

While it is true that the method of scoring the essay has always had issues - and likely still will - there are two points to consider here:  First, American kids need to be writing more and when you include essays in assessments, the curriculum will include more writing instruction.  Second, colleges have always been able to read a student's actual essay.  They don't have to rely on the score as a measure of an essay's quality.  In fact, the essay score has always had only a slight impact on the students Writing component score in addition to being reported as a separate score.  Many colleges disregard the entire Writing component score altogether while others downplay it.  Yet, they have required the essay anyway. Keep in mind that this will probably be the only sample of writing accessible to the admissions committee that is guaranteed to have been written by the applicant.  Admissions officers all claim they can spot an adult-written essay from a mile off, but can they really?  And what is to prevent a student from paying his classmate to write a better essay?

So the essay is still there and those applying to selective colleges are stuck with it.  However, the task should be a better example of a real-world writing situation, and practicing for it may pay off even after the SAT is over.

The new SAT: Math

This is the second of a series of posts about the redesigned SAT.  Yesterday's post addressed comments made about vocabulary.

About the adjustments to the math section:

When Daniel Coleman announced a year ago that the SAT would be redesigned, he listed 3 reasons:

1.     To better serve the needs of college admissions officers.

2.     To improve equity.

3.     To better align with the Common Core curriculum.

At the time, the prediction among many was three-fold:

1.     The SAT would become more like its rival the ACT.

2.     The SAT would become less of a college entrance exam and more of a high school exit exam.

3.       The new SAT would be “easier” and thus do little to distinguish between top students and above-average students.

For the math section in particular, speculation was that, like the ACT, the SAT would test topics currently included in pre-calculus.  The current SAT doesn’t test topics past Algebra II.

Since the recent announcement giving more details about the SAT that will be rolled out in March 2016, some pundits are still predicting that the new SAT will be very similar to the ACT, but I disagree.

It’s no secret that the redesign was inspired in part by the ACT’s increasing market share.  Among other things, several states have contracted to give the ACT in schools as a measure of high school achievement.  That has to be a tempting market to tap. 

One detail in the announcement seemed designed to lure back students who would have chosen the rival test.  The current SAT "penalizes guessing" by subtracting points for incorrect answers.  The ACT does not.  Students have actually chosen not to take the SAT for that reason alone, and eliminating this practice is a much-needed marketing move.  It is also a move I heartily approve.  Less time spent on this useful-only-for-the-SAT test-taking skill means more time we can spend on content and problem-solving.

HOWEVER:  In a very bold move, the College Board also announced that part of the new test will be "calculator inactive."  This will be VERY unpopular, and since calculators are allowed on the entire ACT math section many students will choose to take the ACT on this basis alone.  The College Board may have shot themselves in the foot on that one.  I, on the other hand, am pleased as punch.

In Wednesday’s announcement, they said that the math section would include fewer topics, not more.  The topics are vaguely divided into “Problem Solving and Data Analysis”, the “Heart of Algebra”, and “Passport to Advanced Math.” One presumes that each topic would then be tested in more depth.  This would be consistent with the Common Core goal of studying fewer topics in more depth and of promoting critical thinking skills.  The list of topics was very vague, but nothing in the list specifically pointed to the inclusion of pre-calculus topics.  As for the difficulty level of the questions, it’s much too early to tell.

I am ambivalent about a reduction in the number of topics.  On the one hand, does a college student really need to be able to apply the Hinge Theorem – a topic on one of the Official Guide practice tests?  On the other hand, a student who didn’t remember the theorem could reason through the problem as long as he understood the basic principles of geometry, and isn’t the ability to do that exactly what the test purports to measure?  Won’t reducing the number of topics just put a limit on the questions that can be asked?  Or would this question continue to be asked because the student can reason through it using……wait.  Geometry isn’t in the list of math topics.  Unless it is included in “passport to advanced math” – and what IS that, anyway? – then GEOMETRY IS NOT ON THE REDESIGNED SAT. 

Well, that would solve their market share problem, right there.  On the other hand, if I’m a college math, physics or engineering department, I definitely want to know if the kid remembers geometry.  So, if they leave it off the SAT, will colleges start requiring the ACT instead?  And if this test is designed to influence high school curriculum, then will geometry no longer be taught in high school?  I guess we won’t really know what the topics are until we actually see some sample questions, so I’ll try to avoid getting my panties in a wad between now and then.  Still.  It’s something to keep an eye on.

I’ll be posting about local high school students’ experience with an implementation of the Common Core math standards in a week or so once I get the SAT stuff said, but at this point it’s relevant to remind the reader that the “architect” of Common Core and the leader of the College Board are the same person.  When the announcement first came out that the SAT would be redesigned, aligning with the Common Core standards was specifically mentioned.  But in the announcement last Wednesday, College Board spokespeople and the media were strangely quiet on that point.  Perhaps because Common Core’s approval rating is currently in the toilet?

But, I digress.  One other announcement was indirectly math-related.  Oddly, the one change that seems to have resonated most with the general public is that the SAT will go back to scoring on a 1600-point scale.  I thought this was a silly thing to focus on, but then someone pointed out that this causes your math score to represent half of your overall composite instead of one-third.  That’s true.  The individual who pointed it out was bemoaning this fact (she was an English teacher) but as a math major I am pleased.  I also think it is appropriate given the current emphasis on STEM.

So, changes to the math section:  Good or Bad?  It’s too early to tell, but I confess I’m worried.

The new SAT: Vocabulary

If it has taken a few days for SAT tutors and coaches to respond to Wednesday’s announcements about the redesign of the test it’s because we were super-busy preparing kids for Saturday’s test.  In the brief breather I have before I get slammed with kids trying to prepare for the May test, here are some of my thoughts. 

This will take several posts because a LOT of interesting things were reported.  There are two sets of interesting things:  the changes themselves and people’s comments on the changes.

Actually make that THREE sets of interesting things:  the changes, the comments, and the way the media has reported it all.

Let’s start with the content.  About the adjustments to vocabulary:

Hooray!  I agree that time spent with vocabulary flashcards in order to memorize words such as “phlegmatic” is not time well spent.  However, I do caution you not to assume that this means a child will not need to study vocabulary in preparation for the SAT.  It just means that the vocabulary he or she is learning is more likely to be vocabulary that can actually be put to use in college and beyond.

After several years I have stopped being astonished by the depths of my students’ ignorance when it comes to vocabulary.  It is not necessary to include words like “perspicacious” on a test in order find words with which the average teenager is not familiar.  I know Mr. Coleman promised to only test words that a child learned in school, but he should probably have promised to only test vocabulary that the child ought to have learned in school, and perhaps some that should have been picked up while living life.

There is an exercise I used to do with all of my critical reading students.  (It is from the first edition of The Critical Reader by Erica Meltzer, the current version of which I highly recommend.  There will be a link after this post if you want to order it.)  In the exercise, the student must read a short paragraph, determine the author’s main point, and answer a typical SAT question.  When the student fails to correctly answer the question (which is usually the case), we go back and dissect the paragraph.  There are several words that you must understand in order to understand the passage.  One word is particularly key and it comes in the first sentence.  Only about one in ten of the students (most of whom attend an elite private school) can give me a definition for the word.  Only about three in ten admit to having come across it before.

The word is not “phlegmatic” or “perspicacious”.  It is “partisan.”  In the last decade how many major newspaper issues have been published that did NOT include the word “partisan?”  Knowledge of this word is essential if you plan to take part in political conversation, but our high school students don’t know it.

If it were true that the current SAT only measures whether or not you are good at the SAT (a common claim), then it would follow that getting a better score would be all about memorizing useless vocabulary and learning special tricks that apply only to the test.  However, I assure you that when a student does badly on a critical reading section it turns out, upon questioning him afterward, that he really didn’t understand the article, and often vocabulary is at the root of the problem.