Institute/Session Summary:

Ever since Evelyn Wood brushed her hand over a book and invented speed reading, the debate has raged between its defenders and opponents.  In fact, the attempt to boost reading speed long antedates Evelyn Wood’s student days at Brigham Young, and those who practice the art and science of reading quickly have often encountered naysayers and hostile doubters. 

Indeed, the opponents of speedy reading have made a strong case against it.  And when scientific research can be found for both sides of the argument, how can we decide whether to teach it as a skill or avoid it as a fad?  Careful analysis of the claims of speed reading and objections to speed reading reveals the following (a partial listing):

• Rapid reading is viewed as suspicious behavior by those who cannot do it
• Some attempts to increase reading speed have been unethical
• Some speed reading programs make unrealistic claims
• There are some materials that should not be read at a mad dash
• Speed reading does not eliminate the task of reading
• Speed reading is difficult to teach because it occurs internally
• Speed reading is a disruption of the natural “rauding” rate

A really bad speed reading course, then, would use painful and expensive teaching methods, mock students’ past reading behavior, pretend that speed reading is magic, make extravagant claims about rate and comprehension gains based on correlation studies rather than controlled studies, and so on.

On the other hand, a really good speed reading course would meet every objection, if possible.  In addition, it would help students reach their academic goals in the short and long term.  Finally, it would be sensitive to the students, learning tasks, and mission of the institution.

Learning objectives:

1. Understanding objections to speed reading instruction at the college level through critical analysis of claims and assumptions
2. Designing worst possible speed reading course, based on these objections.
3. Devising a speed reading course appropriate for each participant’s institution and students.

Outline:

1. Quickly but carefully analyze the objections to speeded reading, from both scientific and popular perspectives.
2. Lead participants in small groups to devise the worst possible speed reading course, in light of these objections.
3. Share information about UNI’s speed reading course, inviting judgment as to whether it meets all of the objections and concerns earlier developed.
4. Have participants note in what ways their own speed reading course would differ, based on particulars at their own institution.

Significance to the field:

Students overwhelmed by heavy reading loads seek efficient reading strategies.  Parents ask reading staff to recommend a good speed reading program online.  Faculty may not care how students read so long as they do read.  Administrators want better student learning and retention.  If reading professionals understand the debate about reading rate and comprehension, they are in a good position to make wise decisions.

More important than memorizing a party line is critical analysis of claims and counter claims.  A workshop that promotes critical inquiry is more useful, then, than one that “sells” a particular approach by ignoring objections and counterevidence.

Audience:

The session will be most useful for those who teach college reading courses or offer reading services in learning centers.

Audiovisual aids:

We will use an overhead projector to make materials visible to all participants and will create transparencies that highlight information on the handouts. 

Handouts will include the following:

• a richly annotated bibliography of speed reading research and opinion
• a worksheet for designing the truly awful speed reading course
• syllabus and information about UNI’s speed reading course
• a worksheet for designing a speed reading course appropriate for each institution
  

More information about UNI’s speed reading course will be available on request.