Speed-drill gains in reading speed were concentrated in the early part of the training period¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1916 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Cases of relative gain in speed decreased from the first test period to the third while cases of relative loss increased, because gains were made largely early in training. → Peters 1916

Evidence¶

Peters 1916¶

Peters, C. C. (1916). The Influence of Speed Drills Upon the Rate and the Effectiveness of Silent Reading. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073150

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Case-count analysis of relative gain and loss across the three test intervals, tabulated in Table II of the article; the author reports the pattern of decreasing gains and attributes it to early-period gains, noting intermediate fluctuations have little significance.

"It will be noticed that the number of cases of relative gain decreases from the first period to the third while the number of cases of relative loss increases. This is due to the fact that the gains were made largely in the early- part of the training period."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• An anomalous third-test result was attributed to urging all pupils to read as rapidly as possible, which spurred the no-drill group more — related
• Daily speed drills produced an 18.7% relative gain in silent reading speed among grade 4-6 pupils without injuriously affecting quality of reproduction — related