The experiment did not confirm that speed increase carries increased reading effectiveness within the same individual¶

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? The experiment did not confirm the doctrine that increase in speed brings, in any given individual, also increase in effectiveness. → 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

The author's own interpretation (observation 5) of the seven-month drill experiment: speed drills may bring speed up to an individual's possibilities, but the naturally slow reader may not become rapid without impairing effectiveness.

"This experiment has not confirmed the doctrine that increase in speed will carry with it, in any given individual, also increase in effectiveness."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading Fluency — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• 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
• In good adult writers, maximum speed within an arc rises with radial length (Spearman rank correlation 0.96 across 33 segments), approaching a fixed limit; poorer writers and children show much lower correlation — related