PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AP® Latin How Grammar Contributes to Literal Translation and Reading Comprehension Special Focus The College Board: Connecting Students to College Success The College Board is a not-for-profit membership association whose mission is to connect students to college success and opportunity. Founded in 1900, the association is composed of more than 5,400 schools, colleges, universities, and other educational organizations. Each year, the College Board serves seven million students and their parents, 23,000 high schools, and 3,500 colleges through major programs and services in college admissions, guidance, assessment, financial aid, enrollment, and teaching and learning. Among its best-known programs are the SAT®, the PSAT/NMSQT®, and the Advanced Placement Program® (AP®). The College Board is committed to the principles of excellence and equity, and that commitment is embodied in all of its programs, services, activities, and concerns. For further information, visit www.collegeboard.com. The College Board acknowledges all the third-party content that has been included in these materials and respects the intellectual property rights of others. If we have incorrectly attributed a source or overlooked a publisher, please contact us. © 2008 The College Board. All rights reserved. College Board, Advanced Placement Program, AP, connect to college success, SAT, and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of the College Board. PSAT/NMSQT is a registered trademark of the College Board and National Merit Scholarship Corporation. Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. All other products and services may be trademarks of their respective owners. Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.com. Contents 1. Introduction .........................................................1 John Sarkissian 2. Levels of Expectation: The Different Standards for Literal Translation and Latin Citation in Essays and Spots .... .........3 Dave Banta 3. How My Students Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Grammar .....23 Keely Lake 4. Grammar from the Beginning: Preparing for AP® Latin from the First Day ..................................................39 Elizabeth Farshtey 5. Teaching and Testing Form and Function ............................57 Gail Ryder 6. Interactive Text-Marking: Seeing and Rendering Latin Better Without Written Translations ........................................65 Patrick McFadden 7. Grammar Lessons in the AP Year ...................................79 Wells Hansen 8. Points of Emphasis: Some Observations Based on a Translation Study ..................................................91 John Sarkissian iii Introduction John Sarkissian Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio The goals of this Special Focus volume are to emphasize the centrality of grammar to the entire AP® Latin enterprise, to present teachers with a clear idea of what the criteria are for evaluating student control of grammar and vocabulary on the various parts of the AP Examination, and to provide some ideas of how teachers may reinforce grammar in their classes as preparation for and part of their AP Latin classes. All of the contributors to this volume have experience as Readers (graders) of AP Latin Exams, and the secondary school contributors all have taught AP classes. Thus they bring to their essays both an understanding of what the expectations are for students who take the exams and practical knowledge of what works with their own students. David Banta discusses in detail the different requirements of the three types of free-response questions; it can be especially valuable for teachers to have a clear understanding of how the criteria for literal translation differ from those for referring specifically to the Latin to support points made in an essay. Keely Lake and Elizabeth Farshtey provide overviews of their entire Latin programs, detailing how they lay the foundations for success on the AP Exams by their teaching of grammar at the earlier levels. The former describes, among other things, an exercise in which she has students compare and critique different translations of the same Latin passage, while the latter offers a series of prescriptions to get elementary Latin students used to practices that will serve them well on the AP Exams. Gail Ryder suggests some practical and effective ways to teach and review grammar without overwhelming students. Mutatis mutandis, these methods can be employed with any level of Latin class. SPEcIAL FOcuS: How Grammar Contributes to Literal Translation and Reading Comprehension Patrick McFadden outlines an approach that can be used to wean students away from the practice of writing out their translations and that can facilitate student learning by adding a visual component to the act of translating. Wells Hansen focuses on the AP year itself and suggests how students might begin to develop a more sophisticated approach to grammar; he provides some interesting examples of grammatical awareness making a difference in how well students handle actual AP questions. Finally, I offer some specific observations on student performance on translation questions, based on a translation study that Jim Hessinger of ETS and I have worked on for the last three years. I point out some differences in the behavior of stronger and weaker students and some areas in which all students could improve their performance. I wish to state here that the emphasis on grammar in this volume is not an endorsement of the traditional grammatical approach to Latin instruction over the more recent (but not that recent anymore) reading method. In fact, my observations about the importance of identifying vocabulary in context on the literal translation questions, and the requirement that on essay questions students cite Latin to support their arguments might suggest to some that a method that emphasizes reading Latin in context from the first is preferable. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that students who do not have a good control of Latin grammar will do well on literal translation; even on essay questions, faulty grammatical analysis can cause problems. Year after year the ETS statisticians report that the literal translation questions are the best predictors of how students will perform on the examination as a whole; i.e., there is a closer correlation between the scores students receive on translation and the scores they receive on the whole exam. If this collection of essays can assist teachers in better preparing students for literal translation and, therefore, for the AP Exam in general, it will have performed a valuable service. 2 Levels of Expectation: The Different Standards for Literal Translation and Latin Citation in Essays and Spots Dave Banta Hanover College Hanover, Indiana Perhaps the most common activity that occurs in a Latin classroom is translation. Whether undertaking in-class translation of assigned texts, sight translation of new texts, or discussion of deeper issues tied intimately to the texts, turning the ancient Latin into a more recognizable medium is an inescapable part of Latin instruction and study. Translation, in various forms, is also the most prominent tool for assessment represented on the two AP Latin Exams.1 But neither in the classroom nor on the exams is there just one single way to “translate”; most prominently on the exams, translation takes the form “translate as literally as possible” (LL1, LL5, LL8, LL11, V1, V2), but for the essay questions (LL2, LL3, LL4, LL7, LL10, V3, V4) one finds the instruction to “translate, accurately paraphrase, or make clear in your discussion that you understand the Latin.” Finally, on the short answer questions (the spots: LL6, LL9, LL12), there is generally no need strictly to translate at all, but rather to accurately report information gleaned from the Latin text. These different instructions lead to strikingly different handlings of the Latin placed before the students. In the most recent reports on the grading of the AP Latin Exams, which are the source of most of the examples cited in the following discussion, one finds on one end of the spectrum the translation for neither is anyone so opposed to the Muses who would not allow easily the eternal proclamation of his own labors to be handed over to the verses for the Latin text SPEcIAL FOcuS: How Grammar Contributes to Literal Translation and Reading Comprehension neque enim quisquam est tam aversus a Musis qui non mandari versibus aeternum suorum laborum praeconium facile patiatur Cicero, Pro Archia 9.20 The AP Latin Reader (grader) does not blink at the extraordinarily awkward nature of the English, but finds it to be a thoroughly “excellent literal translation,” awarding it a perfect score (Sarkissian 2007, 10). On the other end of the spectrum, in the long Vergil essay, one student translates the Latin talia flammato secum dea corde volutans nimborum in patriam, loca feta furentibus Austris Aeoliam venit Aeneid 1.50-52 as “with such things enflamed in her heart, the goddess comes to Aeolus.” In the same essay, the student handles the Latin occidit, occideritque sinas cum nomine Troia (Aeneid 12.828) with an English version “Troy is dead, now allow the name of Trojans die with it.” These English renderings are significant contributions to what is described by the Reader as “solid Latin from throughout both passages” that forms the backbone of an “excellent essay” (Sarkissian 2008, 63). In what follows I will examine the basic rationale that allows some stilted awkwardness (as in the first example) and such obvious imprecision (as in the second) so peacefully to coexist in high-scoring exams. I will discuss the basic differences in the standards applied to Latin translations by AP Readers when evaluating the different types of questions (literal translation, essay, spot) on the free-response section of the AP Latin Exams (both Latin Literature and Vergil). Ordinarily a single Reader or Table Leader will handle only one question in the course of the grading, but this past June I was the Table Leader for all three types of questions from the Horace section of the AP Latin Literature Exam (LL7, LL8, LL9), heightening my awareness of the differences in the demands for these various forms of translation. Before any such discussion, it should be clearly stated that the importance of translation, in any of its various guises, is subsumed by the central importance on the exams of understanding Latin on its own terms and of thorough familiarity with the specific selections included on the syllabus. The exam is a proxy for mastery of this larger and more significant understanding of Latin, and not merely a test of literal translation or of general appreciation of Roman literature, history, and culture. In no case can test-taking skills or techniques substitute for the overriding “make clear that you understand the Latin” (as in the directions for essay questions); failure adequately 4 Levels of Expectation: The Different Standards for Literal Translation and Latin Citation to understand the Latin, as opposed to failing to understand the requirements of particular questions or how they will be assessed by Readers, is by far the primary cause of difficulty for students. But nevertheless, there are numerous ways that students can sabotage themselves in answering the various types of questions, thus achieving lower scores than they should achieve. It is in everyone’s interest that all students understand the appropriate ways to answer all questions and know the pitfalls to avoid and methods to achieve success. In this way, the student’s completed exam most accurately reflects what it is supposed to reflect: It shows how well the student understands, how well he or she can work productively with the language, and how familiar he or she is with the core texts on the syllabus. In short, it shows how well the student has demonstrated a capacity to do well in advanced college Latin courses, where a student may or may not ever have to perform the precise exercises demanded of him or her on the AP Exam. Faulty test-taking methods corrupt the effectiveness of the exam as a standardized means of gauging a student’s true ability to work productively with Latin texts, and leads to great frustration from students, teachers, and Readers alike. The AP Latin Exams are designed to include a variety of types of questions requiring different levels of translation and different types of understanding of the Latin.2 The grading system for those questions that demand close, literal translation (LL1, 5, 8, and 11; V1 and 2) tend to quickly expose any attempts to bluff one’s way through a passage because they pay ruthlessly close attention to every word and its precise form and function within the passage. These demands for literal translation, however, create their own difficulties in that they give heavy preference to a mechanical understanding of passages (even, at the extremes, to mere memorization of a ready-made translation without concern about an understanding of the significance of the passage within a wider context of thought and meaning). Nevertheless, even in literal translation, words with a range of English equivalents must be translated in a way consistent with the context (see Sarkissian, page 93 in this volume). The essay questions (LL 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10; V3 and 4) demand that students display wider and more analytical understanding of the significance of passages and the texts from which they come, directly and extensively tying the analysis to Latin anchors that must be well understood. Less strictness over the details of the Latin cited is required, but it is crucial to select the most relevant lines in the passage judiciously and to present the significant point of the citation accurately. The spots (LL 6, 9, and 12) generally require the least attention to the details of the Latin context in which the requested information appears, but rely 5 SPEcIAL FOcuS: How Grammar Contributes to Literal Translation and Reading Comprehension most heavily on the ability to accurately identify and report the particular information requested. These three different types of questions are not designed to be more or less difficult; it is not that standards for comprehending Latin are higher for the literal translation sections and are lower for the essay and spot questions (giving the students with less Latin a chance to score some points). Rather, the different sections stress different competencies and different ways to demonstrate understanding. For the literal translations, it is important to remember that these exercises are intended to test every aspect of a student’s ability to comprehend the Latin in all of its grammatical detail and lexical complexity. Extracting a basic sense from the Latin, no matter how fundamentally accurate, is not enough. The capacity of a student to grasp the basic import and significance of a passage of Latin, especially as a means of constructing an argument about the interpretation of that passage as part of a wider whole, is tested elsewhere on the exam, and tested extensively—the two short essays and a long one for Latin Literature or one short and one long for Vergil make up 55 percent of the free-response section in either case, while the two literal translations total 30 percent. For this 30 percent, grammatical precision and lexical accuracy are tested relentlessly. The passage, as it were, serves as a specimen of Latin grammar and the Latin lexicon, and thus mechanical phrase-for-phrase literalism may prove sufficient. The misconstruing of a crucial verb or phrase in the center of the passage, even when it might lead to a profoundly flawed understanding of an entire passage, counts the same as the misconstruing of an inessential prepositional phrase or the omission of a conjunction. The literal translation questions, however, are not exercises in reproducing a narrow “official” English version. As can be seen, the published scoring rubrics (see, for example, Appendix A) represent great latitude in what is and is not accepted for credit on a segment, and these rubrics are in no way exhaustive—more responses similar to those published in the official standards are sometimes (though always with care and consultation) accepted for credit by Readers. The grading of literal translation sections is tied to a system of all-or-nothing credit for particular segments of the passage, but it is dynamic and thoughtful in the choice of these segments and in the application of the rubric to them. This more dynamic grading works against the anxiety that there is one and only one way through the mine field, which can induce a generally detrimental rigidity in approach to all texts. But what is relentlessly required for the literal translations is that they be thoroughly “accurate and precise” (Course Description 17 [see endnote 1]), not that they provide the general sense, however correctly. 6