Pet 7 Test 4 Reading

[Jan Dominquez]

Yourability to read at higher speeds with good comprehension can dramatically affect your ability to succeed in school and in your career. Efficient reading leads to efficient learning. In today's information world there is no skill that is more important.

AceReader includes progress tracking and reading improvement activities to help you reach your reading goals. It also includes over 900 themed and leveled reading comprehension tests with longer stories, more questions and more choices. Learn more about AceReader at www.acereader.com.

tl;dr As a hackathon project at our recent team offsite, Mati and I hacked together a quick experiment to test whether Bionic Reading actually works. Initial results suggest not, but there are some glimmers in the data justifying a revised experiment correcting the mistakes of our pilot study. If you have 10 minutes to read two Paul Graham essays, you can test whether Bionic Reading helps you read faster here: speed.readwise.io.

If you want to sell a speed reading system, the formula is pretty clear. Like a young Forrest Gump shedding his leg braces, "X [the villian] is holding you [the hero] back; Y [the supernatural aid] made by me [the helper] will set you free."

Bionic Reading follows this pattern. Trying to read ALL the characters of each word is wasteful when your mind only needs a brief cue. By bolding the first few letters of each word, your eyes and brain, working together at last, will effortlessly glide through a text.

It should be obvious that our prior belief coming into this experiment was that it's more likely Bionic Reading is a fad that will come and go rather than a lasting innovation in the science of reading.

Our mission here at Readwise is to use software to improve the practice of reading by an order of magnitude enabling our users to better learn, grow, and improve themselves by unlocking humanity's collective knowledge, so we of all people believe that the world would be a much better place if people could read 30 or 40% more for free.

It is for this reason that we developed a small pilot study to test if reading speeds with Bionic Reading were significantly greater than with any other standard typeface. Given our prior belief mentioned above, our null hypothesis was that the average reading speed of Bionic Reading is the same as any other font.

We recognize this is clearly not a gold standard, double-blind RCT. Researcher and participant alike knew what Bionic Reading claims to achieve. We simply did not have time to (1) develop a mock Bionic Reading placebo that, for example, might bold the middle of the word instead of the beginning and/or (2) find a set of test subjects who are blissfully offline and unaware of this viral sensation. That said, we controlled for what we could and we think we've already gathered some fairly compelling evidence.

More importantly, the pilot study also yielded insights on the experiment design itself enabling us to craft a better version 2.0, which you can try for yourself below. Before we get into that, however, let's discuss the results so far.

This is likely because the first article was less challenging to read, but it's also possible that (1) readers had more energy at the beginning of the experiment and gradually slowed as they became fatigued or (2) there's a bias in our sample group such that our readers were more interested in reading about reading speed studies than Venkatesh Rao blogchaining. In reality, it's probably a combination of all these factors.

Regardless, this phenomenon means that we can't validly compare a subject's speed in Article 1 to the same subject's speed in Article 2 because they're not apples-to-apples. (We attempt to control for this in the updated experiment design below.)

That said, we can still compare the average speeds on each article to draw some initial conclusions. In other words, if Bionic Reading genuinely helps you read faster, we should observe significantly greater reading speeds (statistically speaking) for the Bionic Reading groups than the Garamond groups, provided we have a sufficiently large sample size.

There a couple insights we could glean from this table, but the only one anyone cares about is whether Bionic Reading was faster than Garamond and, as you can see, it was! But only by a meager 14 words per minute (or 3.8%).

I'm no data scientist, but I did take enough stats in university to run a cheeky two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances. The one-tail p-value here was 0.35. This means there's not enough evidence to claim that the average reading speed of Bionic Reading is significantly different from the average reading speed of Garamond.

This makes sense. If you take your time and read slower, you're probably going to comprehend more than if you rush through. There was even a typeface made the rounds on social media a few years ago (just like Bionic Reading is right now) that played on this intuition called Sans Forgetica. It claimed to help you remember more of what you read by intentionally slowing you down.

In any case, we all need to keep an eye on comprehension. If you read 10% faster but forget 10% more you've gained literally nothing. Bionic Reading would actually be negative sum in this scenario because there is A LOT of overhead required to implement their technique (it's much more technically complicated than simply installing a new typeface).

Inter-Article Variation. Second, we learned that using one font on one article and another font on a second article introduces inter-article variability that needs to be controlled for. Perhaps one article is written at a more challenging level than the other. Perhaps one article is more interesting to you than the other. And so on. Accordingly, we've taken a single article and cut it in half so you will test each font on the same article.

Intra-Article Variation. Unfortunately, the adjustment described above is imperfect because most internet articles are designed to "hook" you in the first few paragraphs and gradually ramp up difficulty. In other words, you'll probably read faster in the first trial containing the introduction than you will on the second trial containing the conclusion. To control for this, we've added a second article by the same author and performed the same halving. Now you can compare your Bionic Reading speed in the first half of Article 1 to your traditional speed in the first half of Article 2 (or vice versa).

Font Variation. Third, we applied Bionic Reading to the serif font used on their website, which happened to be Literata, and then used plain Garamond for the non-Bionic Reading control (that fastest font according to the study cited in Best Font for Online Reading: No Single Answer). Some testers pointed out that this might be introducing another variable so now we use Literata with and without Bionic Reading applied.

Author Selection. Finally, we learned that some of our pilot study participants really did not care for the articles we unthinkingly chose. Accordingly, we've tried to choose a safer author for this second experiment. Fortunately, we have a lot of data to inform this decision. The most read and highlighted web article writer on Readwise happens to be... drumroll... Paul Graham. This is rather convenient because we're also posting this article on YC's Hacker News (here) which is surely comprised of PG readers. We've chosen two Paul Graham articles of similar length and similar vintage which hopefully reduces inter-article variation to a minimum, yielding a matrix of comparisons.

It is best to take the test before registration begins*, as most courses that require CRWS have limited enrollment and fill quickly. You may take the test as far in advance as you wish, but you may take it only once for each term. If English is not your native language, you must first meet the English Proficiency Requirement for Registration before you can take the test.

Degree program applicants may use the alternative course as a degree requirement with the exception of Master of Liberal Arts (ALM) applicants in the fields of management, sustainability, and global development practice who follow the MITx MicroMasters pathway to admission. These program applicants may complete the alternative course with a grade of B or higher at the undergraduate or graduate level as an alternative to passing the CRWS test, but the course itself does not fulfill any degree requirement.

EXPO 25 earned with a grade of B or higher may also be used as an alternative course for registration for all the above ALM proseminars and other courses that require CRWS. This is particularly helpful to current and former ALB candidates who wish to continue their graduate studies here at Harvard Extension School and enroll in these courses to apply for ALM admission.

You may not use outside resources of any kind when taking this test. The answers and writing you submit must be your own. Breaches of academic integrity, including cases where AI use is suspected, are referred to the Administrative Board, which may impose sanctions that include indefinite suspension from the Extension School. In other words, if you are caught cheating on the test, you may lose forever the opportunity to register for courses and earn a degree at Harvard Extension in perpetuity.

Harvard Extension School welcomes students with disabling conditions to participate in all aspects of our academic programming. Students who plan to take this test who have a need for accommodations should contact the Accessibility Services Office, by calling (617) 998-9640 or emailing Access...@Extension.Harvard.edu, to discuss accommodation needs. Please see Accessibility Services for further information.

Fall is a great time to get back into the classroom. Registration is open through August 29. We're offering nearly 500 courses, in a variety of flexible format options to meet your busy schedule. Explore courses and enroll today!

3a8082e126