Summary:
Bell
(2001) examined the correlation between reading speed and reading comprehension
in both intensive and extensive environments of children. Subjects in the extensive environments were
given longer texts. Those in the
intensive environments received about 30 short passages, usually no longer than
300 words. Bell expected those in the
extensive program to adapt speed-reading in order to meet the time
demands. Those is in the groups were
then given comprehension tests on their respective passages. A correlation analysis was then performed on
the reading comprehension results and reading speed.
Subjects
in the extensive environment did adapt higher reading speeds to meet time
demands. More importantly, the extensive
environment scored higher on reading comprehension tests than those in the
intensive environment. Bell concludes
that extensive readings improve reading speed and comprehension than “intensive
language exploitation activities.” Furthermore, the more extensive readings a student does, the more his/her reading speed and comprehension increase.
Critique:
There
are few items worth noting concerning the findings of this study. First, it was focused on elementary
learners. Therefore, reading longer
texts may not have the same improvements on adults – although that is certainly
desirable, especially in the intelligence community. Second, it is near impossible to make
comprehension tests for different texts at the same level of difficulty. While the tests may have been valid for each
text, they may not be valid when considered as a whole in the context of this
study.
Now,
the findings of this study have interesting implications for intelligence
summaries (INTSUMs) and short-form analytic reports (SFARs). INTSUMs may actually be harmful to decision
makers if these findings are applicable to adults and their reading
comprehension. Admittedly, SFARs would
not be as harmful as they contain more content, but these findings suggest that
long-form analytic reports (LFARs, usually 2 or more pages) are the most
preferable tools to spread information and understanding of a current issue.
Future
studies on reading speed and comprehension are required in order to support
such assertions. The current study,
while interesting, is not enough.
Source:
Bell,
T. (2001, April). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. Retrieved October
31, 2014, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/bell/
In the experimental design, what was the time element the participants were subject too?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your critique that if the findings are similar for older subjects, the use of INTSUMs and SFARs may actually have a negative effect. If longer documents are better for comprehension, then it would make speed-reading capabilities even more valuable.
Good question, John. Tests were given periodically throughout the school year to the participants. There were a limited number of students, but the repetition of tests helped get the statistically significant findings.
DeleteKyle,
ReplyDeleteI do find these results to be interesting. I am not sure I agree with your analysis of using long form reports when presenting material to decision makers. Based of this research, would you feel comfortable suggesting this method to your DM and that he/she should read longer reports on a given subject as opposed to the smaller more condensed reports?
These results are based on children. However, if these results were found in adults, this I would ABSOLUTELY suggest longer reports are needed for better decision making.
DeleteKyle,
ReplyDeleteDoes this article provide insight on how the experiment structured the comprehension tests?
The tests were text-dependent, so tests were different for each participants - which is one of the biggest issues I have with this research. The only consistent tests were given to the control group (the group whose participants read 300-word passages).
Delete