Does speed‐reading training work, and if so, why? Effects of speed‐reading training and metacognitive training on reading speed, comprehension and eye movements.

Background: Commercial speed‐reading training programs are typically marketed with the promise to dramatically increase reading speed without impairing comprehension. From the perspective of reading psychology, it seems quite unlikely that speed‐reading training can indeed have such effects. However, research on the effectiveness of modern speed‐reading training programs on reading performance in typical readers is sparse. The present study had two goals. First, we sought to extend prior research on speed‐reading by assessing the effects of a speed‐reading application on reading performance in a pre‐training and post‐training design with a control group. Second, we aimed to identify the mechanism underlying speed‐reading training programs. Methods: We assessed reading speed, comprehension and eye movements of 30 German‐speaking undergraduates (Mage = 22.77 years, SDage = 3.41 years) before and after they received a commercial, app‐based speed‐reading training, a metacognitive training or no training. Results: Results revealed higher reading speed in the speed‐reading condition and metacognitive condition compared with the control condition, although not to the extent claimed in the application. Eye‐movement data indicated that the increase in reading speed was due to fewer and shorter fixations in measures reflecting late but not early lexical processing. No differences in comprehension performance were observed between the three conditions. Conclusions: We discuss our findings in support of the idea that the increase in reading speed was not caused by a change in basic characteristics of participants' reading behaviour, but rather by an increase in their awareness of their own reading process. Further research is needed to investigate whether the observed effects are maintained over time. Highlights: What is already known about this topicSpeed‐reading training programs typically aim to dramatically increase reading speed without decreasing comprehension.To attain this benefit, they often provide exercises (e.g. visual search tasks) aimed at modifying basic parameters of reading behaviour, such as the number and duration of fixations during reading. Reading research contradicts the claims made by speed‐reading applications. What this paper addsThis study experimentally evaluated a modern speed‐reading application with typical readers in a pre–post training design with a control group.Additionally, we assessed the effectiveness of a metacognitive training that intended to raise participants' awareness of their own reading process.Participants in the training conditions showed slightly increased reading speed (~35 wpm) compared with the control condition without comprehension being affected. Implications for theory, policy or practiceParticipants were not able to double their reading speed, as often promised by speed‐reading training programs.There was no evidence that the observed increase in reading speed was due to the modification of participants' basic characteristics of reading behaviour (e.g. perceptual span).One possible explanation for the positive effect of speed‐reading training and metacognitive training is that readers' awareness of their reading process was raised. Merely this metacognitive effect may have helped participants engage with the text, thereby reducing rereading behaviour and increasing reading speed without compromising comprehension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]