An anomalous third-test result was attributed to urging all pupils to read as rapidly as possible, which spurred the no-drill group more¶

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? In the third test the drill group lost speed and quality on average; the author suspects the new exhortation to read rapidly acted as a more effective spur to the no-drill group than to the drill group. → 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 interpretation (observation 3) of the departure from trend in the third test, in which eight cases of relative loss in reading speed appeared against four of gain, and seven cases of simultaneous loss of speed and quality.

"It is true that this exhortation was given to both groups but, in as much as it was new to the no-drill group and an everyday occurrence to the drill group, it may have acted as a more effective spur to the former than to the latter, and thus unbalanced the conditions."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

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