The Effect of Pronunciation on Spellings and Comprehension

The Effect of Pronunciation on Spellings and Comprehension Free Online Research Papers I conducted this study to find answers to the problem whether or not pronunciation affects spelling and comprehension of the students in learning English as a Foreign Language. As a researcher, I tried to prove if learners of the English language from Middle East had common errors in writing correct spelling of words with letter ‘r’, be it in the middle or at the end of the word, and if their comprehension was affected by pronunciation. Specifically, I aimed to answer the questions: (1.) Is there significant effect of pronunciation on spelling? (2.) Does pronunciation affect comprehension? I conducted this study in Non-Destructive Testing Technology Institute, 2nd Industrial City of Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for eleven (11) weeks on the 2nd quarter of SY 2008-2009. The participants involved were thirty (30) Arab students enrolled in my General English class. They were all first year college students taking up Welding course. These participants had previously learned and acquired British English. My purpose of conducting the study was to provide an output that will be of help to teachers to understand if the same problem is encountered or will be encountered by them, and to encourage them to use teaching strategies appropriate to the learning style of the learners. Likewise, the result will be beneficial for them to help students improve their spelling and comprehension in learning the English language. Discussion My attempt to do the study was inspired by my own experience as an English teacher in dealing with the non-native speakers of English in a vocational school particularly Non-Destructive Testing Technology Institute where I taught General English to Arab students who had been exposed to British English, or who had previously acquired and learned the language. Since I was using American English, a minimal confusion occurred on both parties in the teaching-learning situation. There was confusion in the production of the r sound in words with middle, or final ‘r’ (i.e., welder, worker, world, marker, car, cutter, etc†¦) and in spelling of words like center, color liter, meter, and the like. The problem is similar to the intrusive r mentioned in the study conducted by Bryan Gick of the University of British Columbia (cited in http://camba.ucsd.edu/files/phonoloblog/gick-intrusive-l-amsp02.pdf.). Considering this experience, as a researcher, I conducted the study immediately after a week of teaching. Accordingly, linguists have long been interested in intrusive r for a variety of reasons. The importance of early descriptions of the phenomenon as it appeared in early British RP, such as that provided by Jones (1917). Intrusive r was first recognized as relevant to phonological theory by a group composed mostly of American Structuralists, who identified it as bearing crucially on contemporary discussions of the phonemicization of low vowels and glides (Bloomfield 1935; Trager 1943; Whorf 1943; Swadesh 1947). Although somewhat later, and with a more dialectological focus, Kurath’s (1964) analysis should also be included in this category. Interest was renewed by the Generativists and following generations, beginning with Kahn’s (1976) dissertation on syllable structure and continuing to the present day (e.g., Mohanan 1985; Vogel 1986; Broadbent 1991; McCarthy 1991, 1993; Harris 1994, chap. 5; McMahon,Foulkes, and Tollfree 1994; McMahon and Foulkes 1995; Giegerich 1997; Halle and Idsardi 1997; Gick 1999). Intrusive r says Gick, may be viewed simplistically as the extension by analogy of a historically attested final /r/ to words historically ending in a vowel (generally this applies only to the set of non-glide-final vowels: /@, a, O/). Thus, in dialects with intrusive r, normally word-final r and zero alternate, depending on whether the word is vowel-initial, as in the following examples. 1. R ~ Ø alternation in historically r -final words (e.g., E Mass.) a. tuner [tun@] à ¼ tuner is [tun@r Iz] b. spar [spa:] à ¼ spar is [spar Iz] c. pore [pO:] à ¼ pore is [pOr Iz]. Gick also explains that in some dialects, this process has extended to all words ending in /a/, /O/, and /@/,. as shown below which is commonly known as intrusion. 2. R ~ Ø alternation in historically vowel-final words (e.g., E Mass.) a. tuna [tun@] à ¼ tuna is [tun@r Iz] b. spa [spa:] à ¼ spa is [spar Iz] c. paw [pO:] à ¼ paw is [pOr Iz]. But Gick emphasized that in most dialects, this alternation never occurs following other vowels. Gick (1999) points out that the historical development of intrusive r followed an identifiable and necessary sequence of linguistic events: vocalization, linking, merger ( or near merger), reanalysis (intrusion), and generalization. In the study conducted by Gick of which he aimed to determine if intrusive r has the same pattern with intrusive l, he found out that the same pattern is reflected in existing dialect typologies as well. He said, such an ordering is valuable in pinpointing the present stage of development of the highly parallel intrusive l. This sequence proceeds historically as follows. Postvocalic liquids undergo vocalization. Philadelphia (S Pa.) is well known for this behavior: â€Å"In Philadelphia, word-final /l/ is vocalized with great frequency† (Ash 1982b, 162). This process, by definition, applies only to liquids (and possibly glides). Vocalization may be thought of as one instantiation of a more general phonetic process known as final reduction (or, conversely, initial strengthening), which may apply to any consonant. Final reduction is a property of apparently all consonants in all dialects of English studied to date, whereby the articulatory movements of postvocalic allophones tend to be â€Å"reduced,† or less constricted, compared with those of prevocalic allophones (Browman and Goldstein 1995; Gick forthcoming a). Liquid consonants, however, are unusual in that they involve multiple lingual articulations (e.g., the tongue front raising gesture and tongue root retraction for /r/; Delattre and Freeman 1968). When liquid consonants undergo ?nal reduction, it is only the anterior articulations (i.e., the coronal constriction for /l/ and the tongue front raising for /r/) that are affected (Giles and Moll 1975; Ash 1982a, 1982b; Hardcastle and Barry 1989, 15; Sproat and Fujimura 1993; Gick 1999, forthcoming a). However, according to Gick the posterior articulations, that is, the tongue dorsum retraction for /l/ and the tongue root retraction for /r/, remain more or less unaffected (see Gick forthcoming b and Gick, Kang, and Whalen forthcoming for further evidence in support of this analysis of liquid vocalization in English). The result is that final allophones tend perceptually to have a stronger â€Å"vocalic† component (Sproat and Fujimura 1993) than initial allophones (hence the term vocalization). In its most extreme manifestation, vocalization may result in a complete loss of the anterior articulation. On the part of the students, trouble came from the way how I pronounced the words, spoke and wrote the spelling of words using American English. On my part as the teacher, trouble came from the way how the students pronounced the words, spoke and wrote the spelling of the words using British English. Focusing on pronunciation and spelling as a teacher-researcher, I noticed that when some students wrote, they occasionally omitted letter ‘r’ from the word that ends with letter ‘r’ and even changed the spelling following their own pronunciation. (i.e., ‘otha’ instead of ‘other’; ‘neva’ instead of ‘never’; ‘welda’ instead of ‘welder’; ‘computa’ instead of ‘computer’; ‘teacha’ instead of ‘teacher’). Another observation was students’ pronunciation of few words with letter ‘o’, like for examples, ‘follow’ is pronouced as (fol-o) instead of (fal-ow); ‘blood (blod) instead of (blad); ‘box (boks) instead of (baks). As a result, some of them wrote the words in reference to the way how they pronounced them. Analyzing the situation, my input appeared to be another kind of English to the students and that the students’ feedback, on the other hand, seemed to be another kind of English to me though I already had knowledge about the difference of British English and American English. As a researcher, I described it as the encounter of two Englishes experiencing difficulty in trying to meet half-way. As a result of the observation I made, the comprehension of both parties was affected. Either I or the students experienced trouble in dealing with the English language. Conclusion My research employed quantitative and qualitative approaches in analyzing the data gathered and observed. In the eight written and two oral quizzes I gave, 27 out 30 students were found to be consistent in their errors in writing the spellings of the words with final and middle r by dropping them out of the words resulting to inaccuracy in spellings. Five of the written quizzes I designed were to allow the participants to write words with middle and final r to complete the sentences. The other three, were to instruct them to write the unknown words with middle or final r based on the context clues given. I conducted the two oral quizzes by reading the instructions aloud to let them write the words with middle or final r. However, similar results were obtained. There were errors in spellings even if I pronounced the words the way how American do it. Based on these facts, my study proved that pronunciation had a significant effect on spellings of some words, though my study was only focused in determining the words with middle and final r. My study also found out that pronunciation affected comprehension in learning a new English for the students who were exposed to another kind of English of which reduction of the final sound is practiced . This is the idea confirmed based on this study. However, the problem raised in the study was not focused directly on the difference of American English and British English but to determine and discuss some common errors committed by the learners as influenced by their pronunciation. This was the reason why the participants of this study performed differently than what I expected as a teacher in trying to teach English using American English. General Reference : American Speech, Vol. 77, No. 2, Summer 2002, Copyright  © 2002 by the American Dialect Society. OTHER R E F E R E N C E S (cited in Gicks Study) Ash, Sharon. 1982a. â€Å"The Vocalization of /l/ in Philadelphia.† Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania. - - - . 1982b. â€Å"The Vocalization of Intervocalic /l/ in Philadelphia.† SECOL Review 6: 162–75. Bloom?eld, Leonard. 1935. Language. London: Allen and Unwin. Broadbent, Judith. 1991. â€Å"Linking and Intrusive r in English.† UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 281–302. Browman, Catherine P., and Louis Goldstein. 1995. â€Å"Gestural Syllable Position Effects in American English.† In Producing Speech: Contemporary Issues. For Katherine Safford Harris, ed. Fredericka Bell-Berti and Lawrence J. Raphael, 1934. New York: American Institute of Physics Press. Costa, Paul, and Ignatius G. Mattingly. 1981. â€Å"Production and Perception of Phonetic Contrast during Phonetic Change.† Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69: S67. Delattre, Pierre C., and Donald C. Freeman. 1968. â€Å"A Dialect Study of American r’s by X-ray Motion Picture.† Linguistics 44: 29–68. Fasold, R. W. 1981. â€Å"The Relation between Black and White Speech in the South.† American Speech 56: 163–89. Fowler, J. 1986. â€Å"The Social Strati?cation of (r) in New York City Department Stores, 24 Years after Labov.† Unpublished MS. Gick, Bryan. 1991. â€Å"A Phonologically Motivated Theory of Consonantal Intrusion and Related Phenomena in English.† Unpublished MS. - - - . 1997. â€Å"The Intrusive L.† Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Dialect Society, Chicago, 2–4 Jan. - - - . 1999. â€Å"A Gesture-Based Account of Intrusive Consonants in English.† Phonology 16.1: 29–54. - - - . Forthcoming a. â€Å"Articulatory Correlates of Ambisyllabicity in English Glides and Liquids.† In Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Constraints on Phonetic a m e r i c a n s p e e c h 77.2 (2002) 182 Interpretation, ed. J. Local, R. Ogden, and R. Temple. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. - - - . Forthcoming b. â€Å"An X-ray Investigation of Pharyngeal Constriction in American English Schwa.† Phonetica. Gick, Bryan, A. Min Kang, and D. H. Whalen. Forthcoming. â€Å"MRI Evidence for Commonality in the Post-oral Articulations of English Vowels and Liquids.† Journal of Phonetics. Giegerich, Heinz. 1997. â€Å"The Phonology of ‘/O:/’ and ‘/A:/’ in RP English: Henry Sweet and After.† English Language and Linguistics 1: 25–47. Giles, Stephen B., and Kenneth L. Moll. 1975. â€Å"Cine?uorographic Study of Selected Allophones of English /l/.† Phonetica 31: 206–27. Halle, Morris, and William Idsardi. 1997. â€Å"r, Hypercorrection and the Elsewhere Condition.† In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology , ed. Iggy Roca, 331–48. Oxford: Clarendon. Hardcastle, William, and William Barry. 1989. â€Å"Articulatory and Perceptual Factors in /l/ Vocalisations in English.† Journal of the International Phonetic Association 15.2: 3–17. Harris, John. 1994. English Sound Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Jones, Charles. 1989. A History of English Phonology. London: Longman. Jones, Daniel. 1917. An English Pronouncing Dictionary. London: Dent. Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based Generalizations in English Phonology. New York: Garland. Kurath, Hans. 1964. A Phonology and Prosody of Modern English. Heidelberg: Winter. Kurath, Hans, and Raven I. McDavid, Jr. 1961. The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press. Labov, William. 1963. â€Å"The Social Motivation of a Sound Change.† Word 19: 273309. - - - . 1966. The Social Strati?cation of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. - - - . 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 1, Internal Factors. Language in Society 20. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. - - - . 1996. â€Å"The Organization of Dialect Diversity in North America.† Paper presented at ICSLP4, Philadelphia, 6 Oct. Data published in The Phonological Atlas of North America (Web site). Available from ling.upenn.eduphono_atlas/ICSLP4.html. Labov, William, Malcah Yaeger, and Richard Steiner. 1972. A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey. Lanham, L. W., and C. A. MacDonald. 1979. The Standard in South African English and Its Social History. Heidelberg: Groos. Lutz, John. 1984. â€Å"A Study of a Midwestern Dialect Using a Computational Model for Linguistic Variation.† Undergraduate senior thesis, Harvard Univ. McCarthy, John. 1991. â€Å"Synchronic Rule Inversion.† In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15–18, 1991, vol. 1, General Session and Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure, ed. Laure Research Papers on The Effect of Pronunciation on Spellings and ComprehensionStandardized TestingThe Relationship Between Delinquency and Drug UseEffects of Television Violence on Children19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraResearch Process Part OneQuebec and CanadaHip-Hop is ArtInfluences of Socio-Economic Status of Married MalesPETSTEL analysis of IndiaRelationship between Media Coverage and Social and

Is the ACT Curved Expert Guide to the ACT Curve

Is the ACT Curved Expert Guide to the ACT Curve SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Whether you've already taken the ACT or are busy preparing for it now,you've likelywondered at some point: isthe ACT curved? Does a 32 on one ACTequal a 32 on another? In this article, we’ll investigate the rumor of the ACT curve andexplain what it really means. Then we'll examine the function of this curve as well as how it's changedover time, before finally explaining what the ACT curve means for test takersand how you can use it to your advantage. Is the ACT Curved? Contrary to popular belief, there is no ACT curve. This means that how well other test takersdo on the ACT willnot affect your ACT score. Even if everyone who took the ACT on a particulartest date were to receive lowscores, none of these scores would be raised or redistributed to establish a more balanced ACT bell curve. In short,your ACT score will always be the exact score you earn on the test- itwill never increase nor decrease as a result ofother test takers' performances. So how does ACT scoring actually work, then? The test's creators,ACT, Inc.,account for variations in difficulty across test dates througha special processcalled equating. This process ensures that scale ACT scores from different administrations of the test always indicate the same level of ability, regardless of when or with whom you take the ACT. Here's howACT, Inc., describesequating: â€Å"Statistical processes, referred to as ‘equating,’ are used to ensure that scores from the same test (e.g., ACT math, ACT English) are comparable across administrations and students, so there is no advantage in taking a test in one administration (e.g., October 2015) over another administration* (e.g., May 2013).† *Emphasis mine. Basically,there's no such thing as an easier or harder ACT test date. ACTs are equated so that your chance of getting a certain scale score is the same for all administrations. This means thata Math score of 28 on one ACT will always equal a Math score of 28 on anotherACT, even if one test contains hardermath questions. So despite what the rumors may claim, there is no "best" time to take the ACTbecause when and with whom you take the ACTis ultimately irrelevant. In truth, neither factoraffectsyour chance of hitting your ACT goal scoreon test day! Even if you were surrounded by Albert Einsteins, their ACT scores still wouldn't affect yours! How Does the ACT â€Å"Curve† Work? Before we delve into the ACT curve,let's take a moment to review the ACT scoring system. The ACT comprises four subject areas: English, Math, Reading, and Science. (There is also a fifth optional Writing section.) Each of the four major sections is assigned a scale score on a scale of 1-36. These four scale scores are then averaged together to give you a composite ACT score out of 36. (This composite score does not include the ACT Writing score.) So how does ACT, Inc.,calculate these scale scores? For each section, you’ll begin with a raw score, which isequivalent to the number of questions you answered correctly. (Note that there are no penalties for incorrect or blank answers.) So ifyou answered 60 out of 75 questions correctly on the English section, your raw English score would be 60. Afterward, each raw score is then converted into a scale score out of 36. But here’s the kicker: how a raw score converts into a scale score varies with each administration of the ACT. This is because each ACT differs slightly in content and difficulty; thus, each test must use a unique equating formula to determinehow its raw scores will translate into scale scores. Unfortunately, this means there's no way for us to know for sure how a raw score will convert into a scale score on an upcoming ACT. That being said, we canestimatehow raw scores may convert into scale scores using score conversion charts fromofficial ACT practice tests. All of these practice tests are based on former ACTs that were actually administered, so the equating processes they employ are guaranteed to be most similar to those used for upcoming administrations. Below are the scoring tables for the2014-15and2016-17ACT practice tests. These tables will show us how raw scores vary in the scale scores into which they convert. 2014-15 ACT Score Conversion Table Scale Score Raw Scores Scale Score English Math Reading Science 36 75 59-60 40 40 36 35 73-74 57-58 39 39 35 34 71-72 55-56 38 38 34 33 70 54 - 37 33 32 69 53 37 - 32 31 68 52 36 36 31 30 67 50-51 35 35 30 29 66 49 34 34 29 28 64-65 47-48 33 33 28 27 62-63 45-46 32 31-32 27 26 60-61 43-44 31 30 26 25 58-59 41-42 30 28-29 25 24 56-57 38-40 29 26-27 24 23 53-55 36-37 27-28 24-25 23 22 51-52 34-35 26 23 22 21 48-50 33 25 21-22 21 20 45-47 31-32 23-24 19-20 20 19 42-44 29-30 22 17-18 19 18 40-41 27-28 20-21 16 18 17 38-39 24-26 19 14-15 17 16 35-37 19-23 18 13 16 15 33-34 15-18 16-17 12 15 14 30-32 12-14 14-15 11 14 13 29 10-11 13 10 13 12 27-28 8-9 11-12 9 12 11 25-26 6-7 9-10 8 11 10 23-24 5 8 7 10 9 20-22 4 7 6 9 8 17-19 - 6 5 8 7 14-16 3 5 4 7 6 11-13 - 4 3 6 5 9-10 2 3 - 5 4 6-8 - - 2 4 3 5 1 2 1 3 2 3-4 - 1 - 2 1 0-2 0 0 0 1 Now how did THIS table get in here? 2016-17 ACT Score Conversion Table Scale Score Raw Scores Scale Score English Math Reading Science 36 75 60 40 40 36 35 72-74 58-59 39 39 35 34 71 57 38 38 34 33 70 55-56 37 37 33 32 68-69 54 35-36 - 32 31 67 52-53 34 36 31 30 66 50-51 33 35 30 29 65 48-49 32 34 29 28 63-64 45-47 31 33 28 27 62 43-44 30 32 27 26 60-61 40-42 29 30-31 26 25 58-59 38-39 28 28-29 25 24 56-57 36-37 27 26-27 24 23 53-55 34-35 25-26 24-25 23 22 51-52 32-33 24 22-23 22 21 48-50 30-31 22-23 21 21 20 45-47 29 21 19-20 20 19 43-44 27-28 19-20 17-18 19 18 41-42 24-26 18 16 18 17 39-40 21-23 17 14-15 17 16 36-38 17-20 15-16 13 16 15 32-35 13-16 14 12 15 14 29-31 11-12 12-13 11 14 13 27-28 8-10 11 10 13 12 25-26 7 9-10 9 12 11 23-24 5-6 8 8 11 10 20-22 4 6-7 7 10 9 18-19 - - 5-6 9 8 15-17 3 5 - 8 7 12-14 - 4 4 7 6 10-11 2 3 3 6 5 8-9 - - 2 5 4 6-7 1 2 - 4 3 4-5 - - 1 3 2 2-3 - 1 - 2 1 0-1 0 0 0 1 Based onthe charts above, we can see that there are several variations inscore conversions. To get a scale score of 20 on Math, you’d need to answer at least 31 questions correctly on the 2014-15 test but only 29 on the 2016-17 test. This difference hintsthat the Math on the 2014-15 testisof a slightly easier difficulty than that on the 2016-17 test. Why? Becauseyou'd need to score more raw points on the 2014-15 Math section to get the same scale score on the 2016-17 Math section. We can also see that if you were to get a raw Readingscore of 28on the 2014-15 test, you’d get a scale score of 23. Buton the 2016-17 test, this same raw score would net you a noticeably higher score of 25. Once again, this relationship indicates that the 2014-15Reading section is slightly easier than the2016-17 Reading section. So what do these findings ultimatelymean for us? First off, score conversions for the ACT don't seem to vary significantly. On these two tests, most differences are fairly nominal - around two or three points at most - indicating that there likely won't beany giant discrepancies in raw score conversionsfor upcoming ACTs. Perhaps more importantly, though, we seethatyou can never knowexactly how many questions you'll need to answer correctly to geta certain scale score on the ACT. All you can do is estimate the number of correct answers you'll need using patterns in conversions for previous tests. Now, try estimating the number of books in this insanely cool book spiral. Has the ACT Curve Changed Over Time? We know that eachACT uses a different equating formula to convert raw scores into scale scores. But hasthis pattern in conversions changedover time? To answer this question, we’re going to look at the oldest and newest ACT practice tests currently available online: the 2005-06 test and the 2016-17 test. (Remember, these practice tests are based on real ACTs, so their score conversion tables should give us a general sense of how the ACT curve haschanged, if at all, over the years.) 2005-06 and 2016-17 ACT Score Conversions Scale Score Raw Scores (2005-06) Raw Scores (2016-17) Scale Score Eng Math Read Sci Eng Math Read Sci 36 75 60 40 40 75 60 40 40 36 35 74 59 39 - 72-74 58-59 39 39 35 34 73 58 38 39 71 57 38 38 34 33 72 57 - - 70 55-56 37 37 33 32 71 55-56 37 38 68-69 54 35-36 - 32 31 70 54 36 - 67 52-53 34 36 31 30 68-69 52-53 35 37 66 50-51 33 35 30 29 67 50-51 34 36 65 48-49 32 34 29 28 65-66 48-49 32-33 35 63-64 45-47 31 33 28 27 63-64 45-47 31 34 62 43-44 30 32 27 26 61-62 43-44 30 33 60-61 40-42 29 30-31 26 25 58-60 41-42 28-29 31-32 58-59 38-39 28 28-29 25 24 56-57 38-40 27 30 56-57 36-37 27 26-27 24 23 54-55 36-37 25-26 28-29 53-55 34-35 25-26 24-25 23 22 52-53 34-35 24 27 51-52 32-33 24 22-23 22 21 49-51 32-33 23 25-26 48-50 30-31 22-23 21 21 20 46-48 30-31 21-22 23-24 45-47 29 21 19-20 20 19 43-45 28-29 20 21-22 43-44 27-28 19-20 17-18 19 18 40-42 25-27 19 19-20 41-42 24-26 18 16 18 17 38-39 21-24 18 17-18 39-40 21-23 17 14-15 17 16 36-37 18-20 17 15-16 36-38 17-20 15-16 13 16 15 33-35 15-17 15-16 14 32-35 13-16 14 12 15 14 30-32 12-14 14 13 29-31 11-12 12-13 11 14 13 28-29 9-11 12-13 11-12 27-28 8-10 11 10 13 12 26-27 7-8 10-11 10 25-26 7 9-10 9 12 11 24-25 6 8-9 9 23-24 5-6 8 8 11 10 21-23 5 7 7-8 20-22 4 6-7 7 10 9 18-20 4 6 6 18-19 - - 5-6 9 8 15-17 3 5 5 15-17 3 5 - 8 7 12-14 - 4 4 12-14 - 4 4 7 6 10-11 2 - 3 10-11 2 3 3 6 5 8-9 - 3 2 8-9 - - 2 5 4 6-7 1 2 - 6-7 1 2 - 4 3 4-5 - - 1 4-5 - - 1 3 2 2-3 - 1 - 2-3 - 1 - 2 1 0-1 0 0 0 0-1 0 0 0 1 Glancing at each section, you can probably already see that there are some key differences in how raw scores convert into scale scores. On the Science section, missing three questions gives you a scale score of 33 on the 2016-17 test but only a 30 on the 2005-06 test. This trend applies to the other scores in Science, too:you’d generally have to score more raw points in Science on the 2005-06 test to get the same scale scores in Science on the 2016-17 test. Thus,we can infer thatthe2005-06 Science questions were slightly easier than the 2016-17 Science questions. But do the other sections follow similar patterns? Yep!On Reading, a raw score of 35 translates to a scale score of 32 on the 2016-17 test but only a 30 on the 2005-06 test. Once again, this points to a slight difference in difficulty, with the 2005-06 Reading section being a little easier than the 2016-17 section. Likewise, on Math and English, the 2016-17 test tends to require fewer raw points to get certain scale scores than the 2005-06 test. Even withthe presence of these patterns, however, most differences in score conversions for the two tests are minimal.In fact, the vast majority of raw scores convert intoscale scores only one to two points lower or higher. So despite the fact there are clearly differencesin the equating formulasfor the two tests, we can conclude that the number of questions you must answer correctly to get certain scale scores on the ACT has remained relatively consistent throughout the years. Additionally,by taking into account the consistency of ACT percentiles, we seethat the overall difficulty of the ACT hasn’t experienced any drastic shifts, either, further supporting our conclusion. The number of sprinkles on these cookies is definitely NOT consistent. What Does the ACT Curve Mean for YOU? As I've mentioned before, theACT curve is extraordinarily useful for estimating the number of correct answers you'll need to get the scale score you want on test day. Before you start prepping for the ACT, find your target score. Then, use official ACT score conversion charts from practice tests to estimate the number of questions you'll need to get rightin order to reach your target scores for the English, Math, Reading, and Science sections. Just remember the caveat: noscore conversion chart will apply exactly to your upcoming ACT administration, as each of these charts showcasesthe equating process forone specific test.But by usingseveral charts together, you can give yourself a fairly accuraterange of raw-score-to-scale-score conversions. Additionally, it's important you understandthe following key pointsabout the ACT curve: When you take the ACT does not affectyour scale score.The equating process ensures that test takers on one test date will not have an advantage over test takers on a different test date, and this goes for state-sponsored administrations, as well. So don't believe the rumors - there's no easier or harder test date! (This is why raw scoresconvert differently intoscale scores!) Who takes the ACT does not affect your scale score.Scale scores are not like ACT percentilesin thatthey're not determined by how well other test takers perform. So, really, it doesn’t matter at all who you take the test with. Even if you were to take the ACT with all certified geniuses, their scores still wouldn't affect yours in the slightest! You can'tuse the ACT curve to game the system.Because you'llnever know beforehand how a specific ACTwill convert raw scores into scale scores, youcan't everguarantee yourself a higher score by taking the ACT on a certain date or with a specific group of people. Absolutely none of these factors affects the ACT curve, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong! Unfortunately, you can't Houdini your way to a high ACT score. Recap: Is the ACT Curved? Despite what's often rumored, there is no ACT curve - at least not a traditional one. The ACT accounts for differences in difficulty among various administrations of the exam through a complex equating process. But because we don't know what the exact equating formula is for each test, we'll never be able to predict with certainty how raw scores on an upcoming ACT will convert into scale scores. Nevertheless, you can use score conversion tables from official ACT practice tests to estimate the number of correct answers you’ll need to reach your goal scores on test day. All official practice tests are based on past ACTs and thusoffer a realistic glimpse intohow raw scores typically convert into scale scores. Overall, the essential facts to remember about the ACT curve are the following: The ACT curve is actually an equating process that accounts for variances in difficulty among different test dates. Therefore,it doesn’t matter when or with whom you take thetest. The ACT curve has remained relatively stable over time, meaning the number of correct answers you need to get certain scale scores varies only minimallywith each test. You can't use the ACT curve to cheat the systemor secure yourself a higher ACT score, so don’t even bother trying! What’s Next? Want to learn more about ACT scoring?Get the rundown onhow the ACT is scoredand check out our guide for detailed tips on what the ACT score range means for you. Need ACT tips and resources?We've got a huge selection here at PrepScholar, whether you're looking for the best ACT prep books or our expert strategies for getting a perfect 36. What about the SAT? Does it have a curve, too? Hop on over tomy in-depth analysis of theSAT curve (coming soon) tolearn more about the SAT equating processand how raw SAT scores convert into scaled scores. Want to improve your ACT score by 4+ points? Download our free guide to the top 5 strategies you need in your prep to improve your ACT score dramatically.