reading speed research articles

Speed Reading Promises Are Too Good to Be True, Scientists Find

• Cognitive Processes
• Cognitive Psychology
• Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Learning to speed read seems like an obvious strategy for making quick work of all the emails, reports, and other pieces of text we encounter every day, but a comprehensive review of the science behind reading shows that the claims put forth by many speed reading programs and tools are probably too good to be true. Examining decades’ worth of research on the science of reading, a team of psychological scientists finds little evidence to support speed reading as a shortcut to understanding and remembering large volumes of written content in a short period of time.

“Speed reading training courses have been around for decades, and there has been a recent surge in the number of speed reading technologies that have been introduced to the consumer market,” says Elizabeth Schotter, a psychological scientist at the University of California, San Diego and one of the authors of the report.

“We wanted to take a close look at the science behind reading to help people make informed decisions about whether to believe the claims put forth by companies promoting speed reading technologies and training courses.”

The report , published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest , a journal of the Association for Psychological Science , shows that that there are no magic shortcuts when it comes to reading more quickly while still fully understanding what we’ve read.

“The available scientific evidence demonstrates that there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy — as readers spend less time on the material, they necessarily will have a poorer understanding of it,” explains Schotter.

Reading is a complex dance among various visual and mental processes, and research shows that skilled readers already read quickly, averaging 200 to 400 words per minute. Some speed reading technologies claim to offer an additional boost by eliminating the need to make eye movements by presenting words rapidly in the center of a computer screen or mobile device, with each new word replacing the previous word. The problem, Schotter and colleagues find, is that eye movements account for no more than 10% of the overall time we spend reading, and eliminating the ability to go back and reread previous words and sentences tends to make overall comprehension worse, not better.

The biggest obstacle, science shows, isn’t our vision but rather our ability to recognize words and process how they combine to make meaningful sentences.

“So-called solutions that emphasize speeding up the input without making the language easier to understand will have limited efficacy,” says Schotter.

While some may claim prodigious speed reading skills, these claims typically don’t hold up when put to the test. Investigations show that these individuals generally already know a lot about the topic or content of what they have supposedly speed-read. Without such knowledge, they often don’t remember much of what they’ve read and aren’t able to answer substantive questions about the text.

This doesn’t mean that we’re necessarily stuck reading at the same speed all the time, however. Research does show that effective skimming – prioritizing more informative parts of a text while glossing over others — can be effective when we’re only interested in getting the gist of what we’re reading, instead of a deeper, more comprehensive understanding.

In fact, data suggest that the most effective “speed readers” are actually effective skimmers who already have considerable familiarity with the topic at hand and are thus able to pick out key points quickly.

The one thing that can help boost overall reading ability, science shows, is practicing reading for comprehension. Greater exposure to writing in all its different forms provides us with a larger and richer vocabulary, as well as the contextual experience that can help us anticipate upcoming words and make inferences regarding the meaning of words or phrases we don’t immediately recognize.

Ultimately, there is no one ability or strategy that will enable us to zip through a novel in one sitting or process an inbox full of emails over the course of a lunch break.

“There’s no quick fix,” says Schotter. “We urge people to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism and ask for supporting scientific evidence when someone proposes a speed reading method that will double or triple their reading speed without sacrificing a complete understanding.”

The report is co-authored by the late Keith Rayner of the University of California, San Diego, Michael E. J. Masson of the University of Victoria, Mary C. Potter of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Rebecca Treiman of Washington University in St. Louis, and is accompanied by a commentary from David A. Balota of Washington University in St. Louis.

The report and accompanying commentary are available to the public online .

During the preparation of this article, K. Rayner and E.R. Schotter were supported by the Atkinson Family Endowment, grant R01 HD065829 from the National Institutes of Health, and a gift from the Microsoft Corporation. M.E.J. Masson was supported Discovery Grant 7910 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Thank you for clarifying these points. I have seen one such course which is marketed currently: Super Learner Academy by Jonathan Levi. The marketing speech is well done and enticing, but I was still suspicious. This article provides some clarity on this speed reading program. Are you, by chance, familiar with this program?

I was just speed reading through this lol XD

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

For more information about this research, please contact study author: Elizabeth Schotter

For a copy of the research article and access to other null research findings, please contact: - 202.293.9300

Memory Makes It Hard to Fight Pandemics. But We Can Always Strive to Remember Lessons Learned

A multidisciplinary panel explored how psychological science might contribute to understanding digital contact tracing, maximizing its capabilities in the future and otherwise improving preparedness for future pandemics.  

Careers Up Close: Andy DeSoto on Optimism, Self-Awareness, and the Gratifying Work of Science Advocacy 

Cognitive psychologist Andy DeSoto was a key member of the APS staff for 7 years and leaves a legacy that includes a highly impactful government relations and policy program.

Depression May Cause Us to View Success as an Exception to the Rule 

Researchers have started to link the negative outlook brought about by depression to an impaired ability to update expectations.  

Privacy Overview

• Exquisitive Tutor
• Readability Tech Tips
• Virtual Readability Lab

SSSR | Research Results: Improved Student Reading Speed and Comprehension

Personalized Reading Formats Studied in K-8 Students

Updated: August 30, 2022

Cross-disciplinary research teams delivered posters summarizing their readability research at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR) annual meeting. The prestigious reading conference reports on all aspects of reading and its related areas, including issues related to word recognition, comprehension, writing, intervention, assessment involving young children and adults, comparisons of orthographies, and more.

Readability Researchers Dr. Stephanie Day, Dr. Susanne Nobles and Dr. Shannon Sheppard

The principal investigators were Dr. Stephanie Day, University of Central Florida, and Dr. Shannon Sheppard, Chapman University. Dr. Susanne Nobles of ReadWorks joined Dr. Sheppard in the presentation of their findings.

These research projects provide evidence that personalizing text formats can improve reading outcomes for school-aged children. The research is a critical step in the work to make each student the best reader they can be, increasing access and equity in learning.

Both teams plan to publish their findings in academic journals.

Influences of Font Format on Reading Comprehension: Implications of Font Personalization in K-8 Students

Shannon M. Sheppard, Susanne Nobles, Sophie Kajfez, Anton Palma, Kathy Crowley, Marjorie Jordan,  & Sofie Beier

click to enlarge

• Investigate the influence of typography on word (Experiment 1) and passage-level (Experiment 2) reading speed and reading comprehension.
• Evaluate typographic effects at the group level and at the individual reader level (font personalization)

Typographic features (inter-letter spacing and character width) were carefully controlled to isolate effects. This was possible by using the variable font Roboto Flex.

• Subtle changes to font format can impact reading speed and comprehension accuracy.
• Personalizing font format can significantly improve comprehension in developing readers across multiple reading tasks.

Citation:  Sheppard, S. M., Nobles, S., Kajfez, S., Palma, A., Crowley, K., Jordan, M., & Beier, S. (2022, July 16). Influences of Font Format on Reading Comprehension: Implications of Font Personalization in K-8 Students. The Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Newport Beach, California, USA.

The Effect of Individualized Font Formats on Reading Speed and Comprehension for Students in Grades 3-5

• Do format readability gains seen in adults generalize to children?
• Are methods used with adult populations appropriate for use with children?

This study assessed if the methods used to assess format readability gains in adults are appropriate for use with children and investigated if the format readability gains seen in adults generalize to children. The study results indicate that format readability gains seen in children mirror those observed in adults.

The SSSR journal publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature and papers focused on theory development. Papers range from very basic studies to those whose main thrust is toward educational practice. The broad remit of the journal is to include work on “all aspects of reading and its related areas,” including issues related to word recognition, comprehension, writing, intervention, and assessment involving very young children and/or adults, comparisons of orthographies, and more.

Author:  Readability Matters

Readability Matters is a tech-for-good nonprofit organization with the mission to engage an ecosystem of partners to deliver personalized reading environments, empowering everyone everywhere to achieve more.

Related Posts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Effects of Reading Fluency Interventions on the Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension Performance of Elementary Students With Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Research from 2001 to 2014

Elizabeth a. stevens.

1 University of Texas at Austin, USA

Melodee A. Walker

Sharon vaughn.

Fluent word reading is hypothesized to facilitate reading comprehension by improving automatic word reading, thus releasing a reader’s cognitive resources to focus on meaning. Many students with learning disabilities (LD) struggle to develop reading fluency, which affects reading comprehension. This synthesis extends Chard, Vaughn, and Tyler’s (2002) review, synthesizing fluency intervention research from 2001 to 2014. The search yielded 19 studies examining reading fluency and comprehension outcomes of reading fluency interventions for students with LD in kindergarten through 5th grade. Results showed repeated reading (RR), multicomponent interventions, and assisted reading with audiobooks produced gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Providing a model of fluent reading and performance feedback, using easier level text, setting a performance criterion, and practicing RR with peers also contributed to improved outcomes. Findings suggest that RR remains the most effective intervention for improving reading fluency for students with LD. Limitations include sample size, only three group design studies, and infrequent use of standardized measures.

Fast and accurate word reading is hypothesized to facilitate reading comprehension because it releases a reader’s cognitive resources (e.g., working memory) to focus on meaning ( LaBerge & Samuels, 1974 ; Perfetti, 1980 , 1985 ; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001 ). When word recognition is slow and labored, cognitive load is occupied at the expense of understanding text. Due to the connection between efficient reading of connected text and comprehension, researchers in the past several decades have highlighted the importance of fluency instruction ( Bashir & Hook, 2009 ; Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002 ; Therrien, 2004 ; Welsch, 2006 ). In particular, students with learning disabilities (LD) struggle to develop reading fluency ( Bashir & Hook, 2009 ; Chard et al., 2002 ; Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Baker, Doabler, & Apichatabutra, 2009 ). Reading can become a frustrating experience, which leads to an aversion to reading tasks. Consequently, students with LD may spend less time actually reading than proficient readers. When students with LD spend less time with text, this negatively affects vocabulary acquisition and comprehension development and may ultimately further contribute to the achievement gap for this population ( L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2010 ). As such, fluency interventions are integral to effective reading instruction for students with reading difficulties ( Bashir & Hook, 2009 ; Chard et al., 2009 ; Morgan, Sideridis, & Hua, 2012 ; Therrien, 2004 ).

The National Reading Panel ([NRP] 2000) identified fluency as one of the critical factors necessary for reading comprehension, but findings from observation studies examining the components of reading taught indicated fluency instruction is often overlooked for students with LD (e.g., Swanson, 2008 ). Guided oral repeated reading (RR) with teacher or peer feedback was identified as an effective method for improving reading fluency and comprehension for all readers. Recommendations from NRP were incorporated into the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (2004), requiring schools to assess individual progress, use research-based practices, and meet the needs of students with LD via specialized instruction, including in the area of reading fluency.

A systematic review of effective fluency interventions between 1975 and 2000 for elementary-age students with LD was conducted by Chard et al. (2002) . Findings indicated that RR interventions improved reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension. Additionally, RR with a model (e.g., teacher, computer, audio recording) was more effective than RR without a model, and modeling of fluent reading improved comprehension. Rereading multiple times, providing error correction feedback, and using progressively more difficult text were also associated with improved reading fluency. Findings related to RR with a peer were unclear. Results showed reading with a peer was an ineffective intervention by itself, yielding negative to small effect sizes on measures of oral reading fluency and comprehension ( Deno, Diment, Dongil, Marston, & Rogers, 1995 ; Mathes & Fuchs, 1993 ). When combined with other intervention components, such as partner retelling, summarizing, and predicting, peer RR yielded moderate to large effect sizes ( D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997 ; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Hodge, 1995 ).

Despite legislation and recent research that promote best practices in reading fluency instruction, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; National Center for Education Statistics, 2013 ) indicates that only 35% of fourth-grade students and 11% of students with LD are performing at a proficient level in reading. Vaughn and Wanzek (2014) described the concerning trend in the NAEP scores from 2002 to 2011: “While students without disabilities are improving their reading performance, the performance of students with disabilities is declining” (p. 47). This national trend suggests that educators are not meeting the needs of students with LD to close the gap with typically achieving peers in reading. In addition to empirical evidence, observation studies have revealed a discrepancy between best practices and instruction. For example, Vaughn and Wanzek reviewed observational research findings since 2000 to assess the quality of reading instruction for students with LD. Results indicated that students with LD are passively learning in large group settings with little to no specialized, intensive, and explicit instruction. Furthermore, many teachers believe students will naturally acquire fluent reading behaviors through sustained silent reading; however, struggling readers require direct instruction in reading fluency in order to make gains in fluency and comprehension ( Rasinski, Homan, & Biggs, 2009 ).

Researchers have continued to investigate the effects of fluency interventions since Chard et al.’s (2002) synthesis. For example, Therrien’s (2004) meta-analysis evaluated the effects of RR on familiar and unfamiliar (i.e., transfer) passages for students with LD in kindergarten through 12th grade. Therrien suggested that RR improves fluency and comprehension of familiar texts and may improve fluency and comprehension on transfer tasks. Similarly, Morgan and Sideridis (2006) synthesized alternative fluency interventions in single-subject-design studies. Interventions that provided vocabulary definitions and listening passage preview, goal setting and performance feedback, listening preview and repeated practice, and peer tutoring showed promise for increasing students’ reading fluency. Strickland, Boon, and Spencer (2013) reviewed RR research on elementary-age students with LD between 2001 and 2011; however, data for students with LD was not disaggregated for all of the studies included.

The most recent synthesis that focuses explicitly on reading fluency in elementary students with LD was Chard et al.’s (2002) synthesis. Since this synthesis was published, the Institute of Education Sciences’ (2011) What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established to identify high-quality research and provide guidance to educational stake-holders regarding research-based practices. WWC also has as its focus describing standards for high-quality research. This proposed synthesis aims to identify further high-quality knowledge regarding reading fluency interventions. It remains unclear which interventions, including technology-based fluency interventions, produce the best outcomes in fluency and comprehension for elementary students with LD within the framework of WWC standards. Given the declining reading performance of elementary students with LD, the purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize fluency intervention studies for this population published since 2001. The following research question was addressed: Which fluency interventions are associated with positive outcomes in reading fluency and comprehension for students with LD in kindergarten through 5th grade?

Operational Definitions

In this review, learning disability refers to an educationally identified or psychologist-diagnosed LD. Some studies specify the criteria used for identifying an LD; however, other studies do not include this information. Reading fluency is defined as the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and appropriate expression (NRP, 2000). Fluency intervention refers to any intervention that addresses students’ speed, accuracy, and prosody when reading text. Repeated reading is fluency practice in which a student repeatedly reads a passage aloud to increase oral reading fluency. The number of rereadings, level of text, type of performance feedback, and performance criterion may vary.

Search Procedures

This systematic review extends the corpus of studies identified by Chard et al. (2002) ; thus, there are many similarities in the search and inclusion procedures. The differentiating procedures of the present review are described below. In accordance with the procedures used in the Chard et al. (2002) study, an initial computer search was conducted of four electronic databases: Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse, PsycINFO, Education Source, and Academic Search Complete. Education Source was an additional database not utilized in Chard et al. (2002) , and Academic Search replaced ArticleFirst, which was no longer available. The search was limited to studies in peer-reviewed journals published between January 2001 and September 2014. The search terms used were disabilit* OR disorder, read* , and reading fluency, fluency, reading aloud, reading rate, repeated reading, reading practice, assisted reading, oral reading, paired reading, rereading, reading speed, reading expression, reading prosody, reading accuracy, and partner reading. The search yielded 4,135 articles; the abstracts of these studies were reviewed to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. An ancestral search was completed using the reference lists from relevant syntheses and meta-analyses conducted since 2002 ( Chard et al., 2009 ; Morgan & Sideridis, 2006 ; Morgan et al., 2012 ; Strickland et al., 2013 ; Therrien, 2004 ). Hand searches were conducted in the same journals as those searched in the Chard et al. (2002) study, including Annals of Dyslexia, Education and Treatment of Children; Exceptional Children; Journal of Educational Research; Journal of Experimental Psychology General; Journal of Learning Disabilities; Journal of Literacy Research (formerly Journal of Reading Behavior ); Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition; Learning Disabilities Quarterly; Learning Disabilities Research and Practice; Psychology in the Schools; Reading Horizons; Literacy Research and Instruction (formerly Reading Research and Instruction ); Reading Research Quarterly; Remedial Special Education; and School Psychology Review. Finally, reference lists of the studies that met the criteria were reviewed to identify any additional articles for inclusion.

Selection Criteria

Studies were included if they met four inclusion criteria. First, the participants in the study had to include students identified with LD in grades K through 5. Studies with combined samples of students with and without LD were included if the data for students with LD were disaggregated. Studies with participants who were at risk for reading failure or identified as having reading difficulties were excluded. As for grade level, participants had to be in grades K through 5 to be included. Studies with students older than fifth grade were included if 50% or more of the sample fell within the target grade range. Second, the intervention being implemented had to target reading fluency among connected text in English. Studies that included a combined intervention package were included if 50% or more of the intervention was spent on reading fluency. Studies targeting reading fluency in other languages or those that occurred outside of the school programming, such as in home, clinic, or camp settings, were excluded. Third, the studies had to employ an experimental, quasi-experimental, or single-subject design providing a treatment and comparison to determine experimental effect. Studies were excluded if they used single-group (pretest/ posttest), AB single-subject, descriptive, case study, or qualitative designs. Last, the dependent variable had to address outcomes in either reading fluency (rate, accuracy, and/or prosody) or comprehension.

Coding Procedures

Studies that met the inclusion criteria were coded using a coding protocol developed for education-related intervention research ( Vaughn, Elbaum, Wanzek, Scammacca, & Walker, 2014 ). The following data were extracted from each study: (a) participant information (e.g., age, grade level, number of participants with LD), (b) research design, (c) treatment fidelity, (d) description of treatment and comparison group(s), (e) clarity of causal inference, (f) measures, and (g) results and effect sizes. Coders participated in a 4.5-hour training session in which the protocol was described and coding procedures were applied to several sample studies of different design types. All studies were double-coded by the first author and an experienced graduate student coder; 99% interrater agreement was achieved, and discrepancies in coding were resolved via discussion.

After sorting the abstracts, 70 articles were further reviewed to determine if they met criteria; 3 studies were excluded based on single-group design ( Burns, Dean, & Foley, 2004 ; Stebbins, Stormont, Lembke, Wilson, & Clippard, 2012 ; Therrien & Kubina Jr., 2007 ). Forty-nine studies were excluded based on language, intervention components (i.e., decoding emphasis rather than fluency in connected text), setting, or participant characteristics. Nineteen studies that met inclusion criteria are organized into four tables based on features of the intervention (i.e., RR with or without a model, RR with multiple features, and interventions other than RR).

For group design studies, effect sizes (ESs) were calculated as the difference between the groups’ means divided by the pooled standard deviation; ES is interpreted using the following criteria: 0.8 is large, 0.5 is moderate, and 0.2 is small ( Cohen, 1988 ). Hedge’s g is reported to provide a less biased estimate of ES with particularly small samples ( Hedges, 1985 ).

For single-subject-design studies, data are reported as gains in words correct per minute (WCPM; i.e., the baseline phase or preintervention mean subtracted from the treatment phase mean) and decreases in errors per minute (EPM; i.e., the treatment phase mean subtracted from the baseline or preintervention mean) for each student. However, if mean performance data were unavailable across phases, the percentage of nonoverlapping data points (PND) was calculated using the graphs provided. For WCPM, PND was calculated by counting the total number of data points during the intervention phase that exceeded the highest baseline data point, divided by the total number of treatment data points and multiplying by 100 ( Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987 ). For EPM, PND was calculated by counting the number of data points during the intervention phase that did not exceed the lowest baseline data point, divided by the total number of treatment data points and multiplying by 100. PND results are interpreted as follows: 90% or greater is highly effective, 70% to 90% is moderately effective, 50% to 70% is minimally effective, and 50% or less is ineffective ( Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998 ).

RR Without a Model

Table 1 summarizes five studies that examined the effects of repeatedly reading text, ranging two to four times, without modeling by a more proficient reader. O’Connor, White, and Swanson (2007) compared the effects of three RRs to 15 min of continuous reading and a no-treatment comparison. Results showed medium to large effects in favor of RR compared to the no-treatment comparison on standardized measures of reading fluency ( Gray Oral Reading Test–4 g = 0.65; Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–NU g = 0.94) and passage comprehension ( g = 0.72; g = 2.09); RR outper-formed continuous reading with small to medium effects in reading fluency ( g = 0.50; g = 0.29) and comprehension ( g = 0.59; g = 0.28).

Studies Examining Repeated Reading Without a Model.

Note. LD = learning disability; NR = not reported; RR = repeated reading; WCPM = words correct per minute; EPM = errors per minute; GORT-4 = Gray Oral Reading Test—4; WRMT-NU = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-NU; PND = percentage of nonoverlapping data points; Gen. = generalization; HCO = high content overlap; M gain = the baseline phase or pre-intervention mean subtracted from the treatment phase mean; M decrease = the treatment phase mean subtracted from the baseline or pre-intervention phase mean; S1 = Student 1; S2 = Student 2; S3 = Student 3; S4 = Student 4; SE = standard error.

Three alternating treatment designs yielded positive results for improving rate, accuracy, and comprehension. Chafouleas, Martens, Dobson, Weinstein, and Gardner (2004) found three RR conditions (i.e., RR alone, RR with WCPM performance feedback (PF) and RR/PF with a reward option) to be highly effective for improving reading rate but minimally to moderately effective for improving accuracy. Kubina, Amato, Schwilk, and Therrien (2008) found RR to a high-performance criterion required more practice sessions but yielded greater gains in reading rate than RR to a low-performance criterion. However, maintenance testing showed decrement in WCPM regardless of a high or low performance standard. Finally, Welsch (2007) compared RR to a listening passage preview (LPP) condition of instructional and easier level texts; RR of instructional ( n = 1) and easier ( n = 3) text was identified as the best treatment condition (i.e., produced the best oral reading fluency rates during brief and extended analysis of alternating conditions). PND results showed RR to be highly effective for improving reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension.

Nelson, Alber, and Gordy (2004) compared systematic error correction (EC) alone to EC with RR on unfamiliar and previously read basal passages. The EC with RR conditions outperformed the EC-only condition; however, EC with RR of previously read material yielded better reading rate and accuracy than EC with RR of new text.

Generalization to novel passages

Only two studies examined generalization of skill to unfamiliar passages, and the results are inconclusive. In Chafouleas et al. (2004) , PND of student performance on new passages with high content overlap suggests generalization of rate and accuracy skills; however, further inspection of the graphs shows limited generalization of skills. For three of four students ( Welsch, 2007 ), RR yielded results that were moderately to highly effective in generalization (i.e., rates and comprehension to unfamiliar text at the same readability level). However, RR was ineffective for decreasing error rates in generalization passages for two students and moderately effective for the other two students.

RR With a Model

Nine studies examining RR with a model are grouped in Table 2 based on the type of modeling provided.

Studies Examining Repeated Reading With a Model.

Note. wwc = meets What Works Clearinghouse group design standards without reservations; Exp. = experiment; ELL = English language learner; LD = learning disability; WCPM = words correct per minute; EPM = errors per minute; NR = not reported; CRAB = Comprehensive Reading Assessment battery; HCO = high content overlap; PND = percentage of nonoverlapping data points; DORF = Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills Oral Reading Fluency; 1 = Experiment 1; 3 = Experiment 3; S1 = Student 1; S2 = Student 2; S3 = Student 3; SE = standard error.

Modeling by an adult

Four single-subject-design studies incorporated adult modeling of fluent reading ( Ardoin, Williams, Klubnik, & McCall, 2009 ; Daly, Bonfiglio, Mattson, Persampieri, & Foreman-Yates, 2005 ; Hapstak & Tracey, 2007 ; Welsch, 2007 ). Welsch’s (2007) alternating treatment design, listed in Table 1 (i.e., two of the four alternating treatments included RR without a teacher model), determined LPP without RR was not a best treatment condition compared to RR alone. However, three studies found that adult modeling combined with RR improved reading rates ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ; Daly et al., 2005 ; Hapstak & Tracey, 2007 ). Modeling and RR of instructional level text six versus three times yielded higher reading rates ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ). Engaging in echo or choral reading with a fluent adult model and practicing phrase drill EC improved reading rates on familiar passages ( Hapstak & Tracey, 2007 ).

Modeling and RR six versus three times did not provide greater generalization in reading rate to new, high-content overlap passages ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ). Adult modeling, RR, and phrase drill EC increased reading rates and decreased error rates on easy and difficult generalization passages with high content overlap ( Daly et al., 2005 ).

Modeling by a more proficient peer

Three studies examined modeling by a more proficient peer, which yielded favorable results for improving reading rate and comprehension but were ineffective for improving accuracy. Sáenz, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2005) compared Peer Assisted Learning Strategies to a traditional reading program for English-language learners also identified with LD; results yielded small effect sizes on a standardized measure of reading rate ( g = 0.42) and a maze comprehension task ( g = 0.46) but a large effect size for answering comprehension questions ( g = 0.91). Decker and Buggey (2014) used echo reading with an adult to make a video recording of each student’s reading. Excerpts of the student’s reading were spliced together to present a complete model of fluent reading. Video self-modeling (VSM) and video peer modeling outperformed the comparison group in mean gain of words read correctly per minute; however, VSM outperformed peer modeling in reading rate during intervention and maintenance, more than doubling the mean gain in WCPM. Oddo, Barnett, Hawkins, and Musti-Rao (2010) found peer RR in mixed-ability groups to be moderately effective for improving reading rate and comprehension on standardized passages but ineffective for improving reading accuracy.

Modeling by a matched-reading-ability peer

Four multiple-base-line studies examined peer RR with matched-reading-ability pairs. RR among struggling reader pairs showed small gains in WCPM on standardized passages ( Musti-Rao, Hawkins, & Barkley, 2009 ). Staubitz, Cartledge, Yurick, and Lo (2005) found that RR with a matched-ability peer increased reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension on below-grade-level children’s books for one student with LD; however, the student was unable to progress to grade level passages. Finally, Yurick, Robinson, Cartledge, Lo, and Evans (2006) reported three studies, two of which met inclusion criteria, examining peer RR among matched-reading-ability pairs. Unlike Staubitz et al. (2005) , Experiments 1 and 3 showed gains in reading rate using below-, on-, and above-grade-level passages. Experiment 1 also showed gains in comprehension and small gains in accuracy for the 2 fifth-grade students on fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade passages.

Staubitz et al. (2005) examined generalization results in three conditions (i.e., covert timing, overt timing, and overt timing with charting performance). The overt timing condition yielded the best reading rate, when the student was aware of being timed, but comprehension and accuracy decreased. Though the covert condition (i.e., the student was unaware of being timed) yielded a lower reading rate, it provided better accuracy and comprehension gains. Experiment 3 of Yurick et al. (2006) also assessed generalization under the same conditions. Results were inconsistent; the timed and charted condition provided the greatest increase in words per minute, but all three conditions resulted in decreased accuracy. Each condition showed similar, yet minimal, gains in comprehension.

RR Interventions With Multiple Features

Table 3 includes one group design and two multiple-base-line studies that examined RR as part of a multicomponent intervention (e.g., combined with vocabulary or comprehension instruction). In Sáenz et al. (2005) Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (i.e., one RR of text with EC, summarizing, and making predictions) outperformed the no-treatment comparison group with a large effect size on a standardized measure of comprehension questions answered correctly ( g = 0.91) and small effect sizes on standardized measures of reading accuracy ( g = 0.42) and a comprehension maze task ( g = 0.46).

Studies Examining Repeated Reading With Multiple Features.

Note. wwc = meets What Works Clearinghouse group design standards without reservations; LD = learning disability; ELL = English-language learner; RR = repeated reading; NR = not reported; WCPM = words correct per minute; CRAB = Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery; EPM = errors per minute; SI = Student 1; S2 = Student 2; PND = percentage of nonoverlapping data points; SE = standard error.

Tam, Heward, and Heng (2006) compared RR of a familiar passage across sessions until a performance criterion was achieved to RR of a new passage each session without a criterion. Both conditions also included vocabulary instruction and EC. Students experienced similar gains in fluency, accuracy, and comprehension in both conditions. Hitchcock, Prater, and Dowrick (2004) compared tutoring in reading fluency (TRF; i.e., echo reading to a performance criterion), tutoring in reading fluency with VSM (TRF/VSM), tutoring in reading comprehension (i.e., fluency practice activities combined with direct instruction in story elements; Tutoring Reading Comprehension [TRC]), and tutoring in reading comprehension with VSM (TRC/VSM). TRF and TRF/VSM yielded ineffective to moderately effective results for improving WCPM, whereas TRC and TRC/VSM yielded highly effective results (i.e., 100% PND). Even though the results seem to favor TRC, it may be that students’ reading rates progressively increased in each phase with continued choral and echo reading practice.

Both conditions in Tam et al. (2006) produced minimal generalization of comprehension skill to unfamiliar passages; however, the vocabulary instruction with RR of the same passage to a performance criterion yielded greater generalization results than RR of a new passage each session ( Tam et al., 2006 ). Generalization results in Hitchcock et al. (2004) were reported at 100% PND; however, it is unclear to which condition this is attributed.

Studies Examining Fluency Interventions Other Than RR

Table 4 includes two studies that examined fluency interventions other than RR. Esteves and Whitten (2011) found assisted audiobook reading produced greater results on a standardized measure of oral reading fluency than sustained silent reading ( g = 1.07). Watson, Fore, and Boon (2009) compared word-supply and phonics-based feedback conditions, with the word-supply condition yielding a higher mean gain in WCPM. RR was not a focus of either intervention, but the same passage was used in each condition across five sessions. Thus, results may be more representative of the effects of RR combined with word-supply or phonics-based feedback.

Studies Examining Fluency Interventions Other Than Repeated Reading.

Note. NR = not reported; LD = learning disability; DORF = Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills Oral Reading Fluency; WCPM = words correct per minute; SE = standard error; S1 = Student 1.

Studies That Examined Types and Levels of PF in RR

PF during RR ranged from stating the number of correct words or errors per minute, to supplying the correct word, to providing syllable segmentation and blending instruction. Providing minimal feedback, such as reporting a student’s WCPM, may increase the reading rate when combined with RR (i.e., according to visual inspection of the student’s graph; Chafouleas et al., 2004 ). Word supply feedback improved reading rates when combined with RR but may not improve accuracy ( Nelson et al., 2004 ). Word supply with RR produced higher reading rates than phonics-based feedback with RR (i.e., sounding out miscues; Watson et al., 2009 ). RR with phrase drill EC and syllable segmentation and blending increased WCPM and decreased EPM ( Daly et al., 2005 ). Finally, incorporating EC feedback during paired RR yielded gains in reading rate for below-, on-, and above-grade-level texts ( Yurick et al., 2006 ).

Researchers have investigated the effects of fluency interventions since the release of the NRP report ( Morgan & Sideridis, 2006 ; Strickland et al., 2013 ; Therrien, 2004 ). These syntheses were limited by design type (single subject only) or intervention (RR); furthermore, the Strickland et al. (2013) synthesis did not disaggregate data for students with LD in all studies included. The Chard et al. (2002) synthesis is the most recent synthesis of fluency interventions, including those other than RR, that focused explicitly on students with LD in Grades K through 5. The review extends the Chard et al. synthesis on fluency interventions for students with LD between January 2001 and September 2014. Given the higher research standards set forth by WWC, the goal was to identify which fluency interventions produce the most improved outcomes in reading fluency and comprehension for this population. Unfortunately, only one study met WWC group design standards without reservations ( Sáenz et al., 2005 ). Five studies were ineligible for review because they did not use a sample aligned with the review protocol (i.e., at least 50% of the students not identified with LD; Ardoin et al., 2009 ; Hapstak & Tracey, 2007 ; Musti-Rao et al., 2009 ; O’Connor et al., 2007 ; Oddo et al., 2010 ). Welsch (2007) did not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards due to interassessor agreement. WWC has not reviewed the remaining 11 studies ( Chafouleas et al., 2004 ; Daly et al., 2005 ; Decker & Buggey, 2014 ; Esteves & Whitten, 2011 ; Hitchcock et al., 2004 ; Kubina et al., 2008 ; Nelson et al., 2004 ; Staubitz et al., 2005 ; Tam et al., 2006 ; Watson et al., 2009 ; Yurick et al., 2006 ).

In general, the results of this synthesis show that RR is associated with positive outcomes in reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension ( Chafouleas et al., 2004 ; Kubina et al., 2008 ; Nelson et al., 2004 ; O’Connor et al., 2007 ; Welsch, 2007 ). Engaging in RR is an effective intervention for improving reading fluency for students with LD. Most fluency interventions yielded some gains in comprehension even though comprehension was not a focal point of the intervention ( O’Connor et al., 2007 ; Oddo et al., 2010 ; Staubitz et al., 2005 ; Welsch, 2007 ; Yurick et al., 2006 ). There is also evidence that gains in rate, accuracy, and comprehension as a result of RR generalize to new texts ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ; Chafouleas et al., 2004 ; Daly et al., 2005 ; Welsch, 2007 ). Additionally, the results align with previous findings of the Chard et al. (2002) synthesis and provide further evidence in support of the theory of automaticity and the verbal efficiency model ( LaBerge & Samuels, 1974 ; Perfetti, 1980 , 1985 ). Developing automatic processing of text through repeated practice enables students with LD to read for understanding.

Provide a Model of Fluent Reading

One method for improving the effectiveness of RR is to provide a model of fluent reading prior to practice ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ; Daly et al., 2005 ; Hapstak & Tracey, 2007 ). The Chard et al. (2002) synthesis found that LPP, provided by an adult before RR practice, increased comprehension potentially because it allowed students to focus initially on the meaning of text. However, due to the absence of comprehension measures in the LPP/RR studies included in this synthesis, it is unclear what additional effect, if any, LPP has on comprehension of text ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ; Daly et al., 2005 ; Hapstak & Tracey, 2007 ). Findings for the current synthesis do suggest, however, that LPP alone is not an effective intervention for improving reading fluency ( Welsch, 2007 ).

If adult modeling is unavailable due to limited resources or time constraints, a more proficient peer could provide LPP prior to RR practice. While the results from the Chard et al. (2002) synthesis regarding peer RR were unclear, the results from the current synthesis found RR with a proficient peer to be an effective intervention for improving reading rate and comprehension ( Decker & Buggey, 2014 ; Oddo et al., 2010 ; Sáenz et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, if struggling readers are unable to be paired with proficient readers, findings suggest improvement in rate, comprehension, and accuracy using peer RR among matched-reading-ability pairs ( Musti-Rao et al., 2009 ; Staubitz et al., 2005 ; Yurick et al., 2006 ).

Generalization to Unfamiliar Text

Generalization measures were not taken in the studies pairing struggling readers with more proficient peers, but matched-reading-ability pairs showed some generalization of faster reading rate to unfamiliar text ( Staubitz et al., 2005 ; Yurick et al., 2006 ). In some cases accuracy decreased as reading rate increased ( Staubitz et al., 2005 ; Yurick et al., 2006 ). One possibility is that students are more anxious when they are aware of being timed and thus are more likely to make errors while reading. Another possibility is a tradeoff in accuracy as reading rate increases. This suggests a point at which improving rate becomes disadvantageous as it may negatively affect reading comprehension due to an increased error rate. Across all studies, accuracy gains don’t appear to generalize or maintain as well as gains in comprehension or rate ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ; Decker & Buggey, 2014 ; Staubitz et al., 2005 ; Tam et al., 2006 ; Yurick et al., 2006 ).

Multicomponent Interventions and Assisted Audiobook Reading

While results support RR as the most effective method for improving reading fluency and comprehension, assisted reading using audiobooks and multicomponent interventions also show promise for improving reading fluency and comprehension outcomes ( Esteves & Whitten, 2011 ; Hitchcock et al., 2004 ; Sáenz et al., 2005 ; Tam et al., 2006 ). Chard et al. (2002) found that a tape or computer model of fluent reading was an effective method when combined with RR practice. However, more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of assisted reading with audio-books on fluency and comprehension outcomes. RR combined with multiple features may be effective for improving reading fluency and comprehension; students may benefit from additional instruction in comprehension and vocabulary. Peer-mediated comprehension activities, VSM, and RR to a performance criterion may produce better gains in rate and comprehension; however, it’s difficult to identify the efficacy of individual components within combined intervention packages.

Other Elements That Influence Fluency Performance

Other variables that may be associated with higher levels of fluency and comprehension performance include the number of RRs, setting a performance criterion, text difficulty, VSM, and PF.

Performance criterion for RR

Consistent with the Chard et al. (2002) findings, setting a performance criterion was associated with greater gains in rate, accuracy, and comprehension than RR with no criterion ( Kubina et al., 2008 ). Using a higher performance criterion does not differentially effect the decrement of WCPM over time; as such, gains may not be sustainable over time ( Kubina et al., 2008 ).

Number of RRs

Also consistent with the Chard et al. (2002) findings, increasing the number of RRs yields greater reading rates ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ). However, it does not appear to differentially effect the generalization of rate to high-content-overlap passages ( Ardoin et al., 2009 ). While increasing the number of RRs may immediately affect performance, gains may not generalize to unfamiliar but similar texts.

Text difficulty

Using easier level text produced greater gains in comprehension, accuracy, and rate for most students, but results may depend on individual needs and should be considered on a case-by-case basis ( Daly et al., 2005 ; Nelson et al., 2004 ; Staubitz et al., 2005 ; Welsch, 2007 ; Yurick et al., 2006 ).

Two studies found favorable results using VSM; further research should explore the impact of using VSM techniques compared to other fluent models (e.g., adult, more proficient peer; Decker & Buggey, 2014 ; Hitchcock et al., 2004 ).

In the Chard et al. (2002) synthesis, correction and feed-back were associated with enhanced fluency performance, but a comparison of types and levels of feedback was not discussed. The results of the current synthesis showed EC alone was ineffective for improving reading rate and accuracy ( Nelson et al., 2004 ). PF is most effective when combined with RR; however, it remains unclear which level of PF produces better gains in reading fluency. Students with LD may require more explicit feedback to improve reading accuracy (e.g., RR with word-supply feedback versus WCPM only). It is possible that the type of PF may not matter as much as providing it in conjunction with RR.

Amount of text

Unlike the Chard et al. (2002) synthesis, no studies examined varying the amount of text used in RR practice.

Future Research

Results from this synthesis confirmed previous findings that RR is associated with improved outcomes in reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension for students with LD. Given that only one study met WWC research design standards and 11 were not yet WWC reviewed, further research of high quality and rigor as defined by the WWC guidelines is needed to resolve unanswered questions related to specific elements of RR and potentially promising interventions, such as technology-based literacy interventions or VSM. For example, studies in this corpus did not report comprehension measures when an adult modeled fluent reading. Research is also needed to compare the effects of RR with adult versus peer modeling on reading comprehension outcomes. Two studies included choral or echo RR, but the extent to which these RR variations, or a combination of these variations, affect fluency and comprehension outcomes remains unknown. There are also unanswered questions concerning which level of PF (e.g., WCPM reporting, word-supply feedback, or syllable segmentation and blending) produces the greatest gains in reading rate and accuracy when combined with RR. While RR interventions improve reading rate, there appears to be a point at which students’ accuracy decreases, which may negatively affect comprehension. Future research should investigate whether an increase in reading rate becomes counterproductive for improving reading comprehension as a result of the tradeoff in reading accuracy.

In spite of the increase in technology-based literacy interventions within the past decade ( Ihnot, Matsoff, Gavin, & Hendrickson, 2001 ; Kennedy & Deshler, 2010 ), no studies examining computerized fluency interventions met the inclusion criteria of this synthesis. What effect, if any, do technology-based interventions have on reading fluency and comprehension outcomes? Esteves and Whitten (2011) yielded large effect sizes on a fluency measure when using assisted reading with digital audiobooks. However, the effect of assisted reading with RR is unclear. A comparison of assisted reading, assisted reading with RR, and RR alone on fluency and comprehension outcomes is warranted. If digital audiobooks can be used in place of adult modeling of fluent reading, this may provide teachers with greater flexibility to implement RR routines classwide.

Two studies showed promising results for VSM as a reading fluency intervention ( Decker & Buggey, 2014 ; Hitchcock et al., 2004 ). Further research is needed to identify the particular aspects of self-modeling that influence reading fluency and comprehension outcomes and whether these gains are sustainable or generalizable. Furthermore, proficient peer-modeling studies did not address generalization of skill to unfamiliar text. Do the generalization results differ between proficient peer versus matched-ability-peer dyads? Finally, this body of research assumes that reading fluency precedes comprehension; however, to what extent does comprehension facilitate fluent reading?

Implications for Practice

The findings of the present synthesis support previous research that RR remains the most effective intervention for improving reading fluency for students with LD. Sustained silent reading is widely implemented as a mechanism to increase reading fluency, but it is not supported as an effective method for improving oral reading fluency. Teachers may consider using an easier level text and require students to read to a performance criterion to promote gains in fluency. When possible, teachers may also consider providing PF, such as WCPM or EPM, word-supply, or repeated practice of miscues via syllable segmentation and blending.

Teacher modeling might be the best example of fluent reading; however, this may not be feasible within a classroom context. As such, practitioners might consider implementing peer RR routines. Students with LD can be paired with more proficient readers; however, peer RR in matched-ability pairs may also improve reading fluency and comprehension when proficient readers are unavailable (e.g., resource setting). Finally, students may also benefit from multicomponent interventions that combine RR with vocabulary or comprehension instruction.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this systematic review. First, this body of research consists of primarily single-subject design studies, none of which meet WWC design standards for single-subject research. Only one identified group-design study met WWC standards without reservations. Future group design research is needed with larger sample sizes and adequate treatment duration to enhance confidence in findings, generalizability of results, and to further investigate the aspects of RR that best facilitate generalized fluency gains over time. Second, most studies used proximal measures, such as basal reading passages, to assess students’ reading fluency. Thus, the extent to which fluency interventions affect reading fluency and comprehension outcomes on standardized reading measures remains unclear. Use of standardized measures in future research will also enhance confidence in findings. Third, in addition to the differences in study design, the variability of proximal measures used made it difficult to compare results across studies. It was not possible to report single-subject-design results on a common metric because some studies reported an increase in WCPM or decrease in EPM while others reported PND. Furthermore, some proximal measures contained high content overlap while others did not. Due to the limited number of studies meeting WWC standards, we did not aggregate findings across studies. In spite of these limitations, the results of this review support the use of fluency-building activities for students with LD.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Marcia Barnes and Dr. James Pustejovsky for their feedback and guidance in preparing this manuscript.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grant P50 HD052117-07 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the synthesis.

Scott H Young

Learn faster, achieve more

• Get Better at Anything

Now available!

I was wrong about speed reading: here are the facts.

Seven years ago, I read some books and articles on speed reading and started practicing some of the methods. I found I was able to increase my reading speed from 450 word per minute to 900 in the drills, so I published an article entitled, Double Your Reading Rate , which has since become one of the most popular on this website.

When I wrote the piece, I based the article purely on my personal experience along with the how-to books I had read. I didn’t have any solid scientific research to back my experiments.

Since that time, I’ve had some lingering doubts about speed reading. In addition to seeing some flickers of research that made me suspicious about speed reading programs, I had mostly stopped using the techniques I originally advocated. My reading diet had switched from lighter self-help, to denser and more academic writing. That meant comprehension, not speed, was the bottleneck I was trying to improve.

Now, nearly a decade later, I decided to do some in-depth research into speed reading to bring you the facts.

Is It Possible to Read 20,000+ Words Per Minute?

Some speed reading claims can be tossed aside immediately. Claims that you can read a book as fast as you can flip through a phone book are completely impossible on anatomical and neurological levels.

First we have anatomical reasons to throw out absurdly high reading rates. In order to read, the eye has to stop at a part of the text, this is called fixation. Next, it must make a quick movement to the next fixation point, this is called a saccade. Finally, after you jump a few points, the brain has to assemble all this information so you can comprehend what you’ve just seen.

Eye-movement expert Keith Rayner, argues that even going beyond 500 words per minute is improbable because the mechanical process of moving your eye, fixing it and processing the visual information can’t go much faster than that.

Speed reading experts claim that they can work around this problem by taking in more visual information in each saccade. Instead of reading a couple words in one fixation, you can process multiple lines at a time.

This is unlikely for two reasons. One, the area of the eye which can correctly resolve details, called the fovea , is quite small—only about an inch in diameter at reading distance. Processing more information per fixation is limited by the fact that our eyes are rather poor lenses. They need to move around in order to get more details. This means that eyes are physically constrained in the amount of information they achieve per fixation.

Second, working memory constraints are at least as important as anatomical ones. The brain can hold around 3-5 “chunks” of information at a time. Parsing multiple lines simultaneously, means that each of these threads of information must remain open until the line is fully read. This just isn’t possible with our limited mental RAM.

What about systems like Spritz ? Spritz works by trying to avoid the problem of saccades. If each word appears in the same place on the screen, your eye can stay fixed on that point while words flip through more quickly than you could hunt them down on a page. Indeed, using the application gives a strong impression that you can read very quickly.

Their website claims to have research showing faster reading speeds, but unfortunately I was not able to find any independent, peer-reviewed work substantiating these claims.

Working memory constraints here too, enforce a limit on the upper speed you could use Spritz and still be considered to be “reading” everything. Remember reading was a three step process: fixate, saccade and process. Well that processing step slows down regular reading too. If there are no pauses in the stream of words, there isn’t enough time to process them and they fall out of working memory before they’re comprehended .

Is It Possible to Make Moderate Speed Gains Through Training?

The evidence is clear: anything above 500-600 words per minute is improbable without losing comprehension. Even my own perceived gain of 900 word per minute meant that I was probably losing considerable comprehension. This was masked because the books I was reading had enough redundancy to make following along possible with impaired comprehension.

However, according to Raynor, the average college-educated reader only reads at 200-400 words per minute. If 500-600 words forms an upper bound, that does suggest that doubling your reading rate is possible, albeit as a hard upper limit. Can we still get moderate speed reading gains?

There seems to be some mild evidence here in favor of speed reading. One study of a course had some students quadruple their speed. Another study showed some speed reading experts reading around the 600 word per minute level, roughly twice as fast as a normal reader.

However there’s a trap here. Speed reading may possibly make you a faster reader, but it’s not clear the speed reading techniques are the cause. Second, speed reading trainees tended to read faster, with less comprehension, than non-speed readers . Since measuring comprehension is more difficult than speed, I believe many new speed readers can fall into the trap I did: believing they’re making an unqualified doubling of their reading rate, when in reality, they are doing so at a significant tradeoff of comprehension.

Do Speed Reading Techniques Work?

If the evidence suggests that reading faster may be possible, albeit more modestly, it casts a much harsher light on certain speed reading dogma. The most dangerous is the idea that subvocalization should be avoided to read faster.

Subvocalization is the little inner voice you have when reading that speaks the words aloud. When you started reading you probably spoke out loud with that voice, but you learned to silence it as you got older. If you turn your attention to it, however, you can still hear yourself making the sounds of the words in your head.

Speed reading experts claim that subvocalization is the bottleneck that slows down your reading. If you can learn to just recognize words visually without saying them in your inner voice, you can read much faster.

Here the evidence is clear: subvocalization is necessary to read well . Even expert speed readers do it, they just do it a bit faster than untrained people do. We can check this because that inner voice sends faint communication signals to the vocal cords, as a residue of your internal monolog, and those signals can be measured objectively.

It’s simply not possible to comprehend what you’re reading and avoid using that inner voice. So reading faster means being able to use this inner voice faster, not eliminating it. To further that, expert speed readers who were studied also subvocalized, they just did it faster.

The other main recommendation I made in my speed reading article was using a pointer. This means moving your finger or a pen to underline the text as you read it. This technique is supposed to help you make eye fixations and reduce the random wandering of the eye which can waste time. One study suggests that this apparent function isn’t realized, and that the pointer functions as a pacing device , while actual eye fixations are uncorrelated with pointer or hand movements.

If You Shouldn’t Speed Read, How Should You Read Better and Faster?

In my research for this article, I did find a couple factors that were associated with better reading speed, without sacrificing comprehension. None of these are magic fixes for your reading woes, but a mild treatment that works is better than a fantastic one which doesn’t.

Reading Tip #1: Skim Before You Read

Many speed reading courses are actually teaching skimming techniques, even if they package it as “reading” faster. Skimming is covering the text too fast to read everything fully. Instead, you’re selectively picking up parts of the information.

Skimming, isn’t actually a bad method, provided it’s used wisely. One study found that skimming a text before going on to reading it, improved comprehension in the majority of cases.

Reading Tip #2: Improve Your Fluency to Improve Your Speed

Fluent recognition of words was one of the major slowing points for readers . Subvocalization, that mythical nemesis of speed readers, is slower on unfamiliar words. If you want to speed up reading, learning to recognize words faster seems to improve your reading speed.

Fluency isn’t just an issue for reading in your non-native language. It also matters for technical documents or prose which uses unfamiliar vocabulary. If I’m reading a text that uses jargon like mRNA , or obscure words like synecdoche , I’m going to pause longer. That will slow my reading speed down.

The best way to improve fluency is to read more. If you read more of a certain type of text, you’ll learn those words faster and read better. If you’re a non-native or fluency significantly impacts your reading speed, then even a tool like Anki may be useful for learning hard words.

Reading Tip #3: Know What You Want, Before You Read It

Part of the reason skimming first might appear to help is that it allows you to map out a document. Knowing how an article or book is structured, then, allows you to pay more attention to the things you think are important.

Another tip offered in a lot of speed reading courses, which is likely good advice, is to know what you’re trying to get out of a text before you read it. Thinking about this before you start reading allows you to prime yourself to pay attention when you see words and sentences that are related. Even if you’re reading at a speed which has some comprehension loss, you’ll be more likely to slow down at the right moments.

This isn’t always possible. I read a lot of books unsure about what I want to discover in them. Fiction and reading for pleasure can’t be reduced to a mission objective. However a lot of bland, necessary reading in our lives fits this type. Speeding it up might be worthwhile if it leaves us more time for reading with curiosity.

Reading Tip #4: Deeper Processing Tasks to Improve Retention

Sometimes you don’t want speed at all—you want near full comprehension. When I was in school, I needed to read most textbooks in a way that I could retain nearly every fact and idea I encountered later. It’s not just full comprehension you want, but long-term memory of the information.

Here cognitive science offers some suggestions. A principle of memory is that we remember what we think about. So if you want to remember the ideas of a book, highlighting bolded passages isn’t the best idea. Highlighting causes you to think about bolded words, not what they mean.

Some alternatives are taking paraphrased, sparse notes or rewriting factual information you want to remember as questions to self-quiz later.

I was wrong. Subvocalization shouldn’t be avoided. Doubling your reading rate may be possible from a lower range (250 to 500 words per minute, for example), but it’s probably impossible to go beyond 500-600 words and still get full retention. Speed reading may have some redemption as an alternative to skimming text, but even here the benefits come from how speed readers conceptually organize the text, and not on the mechanics of eye movements.

In terms of accuracy, my original article hasn’t aged too well. In my more recent courses, I still teach speed-reading, but I had already shifted mostly to the speed-reading-as-intelligent-skimming paradigm which is a bit more defensible. Still, I’ll be sure to include this research in any new courses I develop.

I apologize to any readers who may have gotten outsized hopes about what speed reading could accomplish. My goal, as always, isn’t to present a fixed dogma of what it takes to learn better, but to research and experiment with new ideas. Unfortunately, sometimes that’s a path that dead-ends or winds back on itself. In any case, I’ll always do my best to share whatever I find with you.

Best Articles

• Best Learning
• Best Habits
• Best Goal Setting
• Best Life Philosophy
• Best Career
• Best Feeling Better
• Best Thinking Better
• Best Productivity

Related Articles

• Speed Reading Follow-Up My recent lifehacker.com feature has created a lot of buzz over my article, Double Your Reading Rate. But I’m afraid I’ve stirred up a bit of confusion over the idea...
• The Real Way to Improve Your Reading Speed I’ve written before about how I first got interested in speed reading. I had read a book teaching it, and noticed it helped me read almost twice as fast. A...
• Double Your Reading Rate This is an older article I originally wrote about speed reading based on my personal experience. I’ve since posted a critique of the original methods, backed by more significant scientific...
• What’s Wrong With Just Reading Book Summaries? I was having a conversation with a friend who likes to read book summaries. He’s not a big reader, but still wants the ideas from great books, so he goes...
• Beyond Speed – How to Read Smart After writing my popular article on speed reading, I received a lot of comments from people who wanted to read faster. But reading faster isn’t the whole picture. If you...

About Scott

• Ultralearning
• Free Newsletter

Can People Really Learn to 'Speed Read'?

Faster isn't necessarily better (or even possible).

There never seems to be enough time to read these days. With so many books and articles — especially all those shared on social media (maybe even this one) — the ability to read faster could be a life-changer.

Which is why so many classes, books and apps claim they can get you to read faster — much faster. The problem is that true speed reading — a boost in reading speed by at least three times without any loss in comprehension — isn't supported by the science.

"Speed reading is not actually possible," said Elizabeth Schotter, a cognitive scientist at the University of South Florida.

Related: Can Brain Scans Read People's Minds?

Reading is a complex task that requires coordination between multiple mental systems, she explained. You have to first see the word; retrieve its meaning and any other information associated with it (such as its grammatical role in the sentence); relate the word to the rest of the sentence and its broader context; and then figure out where to point your eyes next.

Sometimes a glitch in the process requires you to go back and reread. This all happens fast: a skilled reader can read about 200 to 300 words per minute. Speeding up this process while retaining accuracy is almost impossible, she said.

"The scientific community is pretty consistent in our skepticism about speed reading," said Schotter, who wrote a recent review paper on the topic. "Someone who is claiming to help people speed read is usually making money off those claims."

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Indeed, people have been selling reading classes, books and now apps ever since Evelyn Wood introduced her Reading Dynamics program in 1959, which became so popular that Presidents Kennedy, Nixon and Carter sent administration staff to take the course. Wood's technique trains people to read whole passages all at once, and other books and classes promote similar approaches, by scanning text in a zigzag pattern, for example. These methods suggest that our eyes make wasted movements when flitting back and forth over words; by streamlining where we look, we can thereby accelerate our reading.

But studies find that visual acuity concentrates on a relatively small area in the field of view, making it impossible to fully perceive and read large swaths of text at once. The limit to reading comprehension is the ability to recognize words, so adjusting eye movements probably won't help you read faster. We also need to read words in order, so a zigzag pattern would likely impair reading instead of giving it a boost. When our eyes dart back and forth, it isn't  wasted motion; it's actually helping us to fully understand the text. 

Hearing voices

Other speed-reading techniques teach readers to suppress the inner voice you hear when reading, based on the assumption that this voice slows you down. But research suggests the opposite: that eliminating this voice makes it harder for you to understand what you're reading.

In recent years, numerous apps have claimed they can crank up reading speed without putting you through any training at all. These apps display text just one word at a time, one after another at a certain rate. That way, your eyes are forced to focus on the word in front of you. But again, the eyes sometimes have to go back and reread words to fully grasp text. And even though the eyes can only focus on a small region in their field of view, research has found that your eyes pick up important information beyond the word in focus — something that is simply not possible if you can only read one word at a time.

To be sure, reading speed varies a lot. Due to a variety of factors, some people just happen to be faster readers , Schotter said. They might have better working memory or are faster at processing information. But claims that people can triple their reading speed or more (e.g., reading more than 15,000 words per minute, which is equivalent to reading a college-level textbook in less than 6 minutes) are dubious. Studies have found that these speed readers don't fully grasp the material. "Most people who claim to be speed reading are actually skimming," Schotter said.

In skimming, you're hunting for certain words, passages and sentences. A good skimmer can capture the main ideas of a text pretty quickly — especially if they're already familiar with the topic — but they'll also miss out on details and nuance.

So is there a way to become a faster reader? You probably can't dramatically increase your speed, but research suggests you can get a little faster by improving your vocabulary and simply reading more . Good thing there's plenty out there to read.

• Do Subliminal Messages Really Work?
• Breaking the Code: Why Yuor Barin Can Raed Tihs
• Why Books and Movies Are Better the Second Time

Originally published on Live Science .

Live Science x HowTheLightGetsIn — Get discounted tickets to the world’s largest ideas and music festival

Do opposites really attract in relationships?

Ancient sea cow was killed by prehistoric croc then torn apart by a tiger shark

Most Popular

• 2 For C. diff, antibiotic resistance comes at a cost
• 3 Large patch of the Atlantic Ocean near the equator has been cooling at record speeds — and scientists can't figure out why
• 4 Gravitational waves hint at a 'supercool' secret about the Big Bang
• 5 New reactor could more than triple the yield of one of the world's most valuable chemicals

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Read Research Papers Quickly and Efficiently

If you are at that point when you are asking if you are reading sufficient research papers or if you have done enough literature review, then you should read along. These are common questions when conducting research, especially during the postgraduate years. We may be interested in a research topic but knowing how to read research papers quickly and identifying a research gap is different. As researchers, we need to do extensive reading to know what has been done before or where other scholars have left a gap for us to continue in their footsteps and fill those gaps in knowledge.

Table of Contents

Are reading and comprehension the same when it comes to research articles? Not necessarily.

Learning how to read research papers quickly is not just about your reading speed, it is about how efficient your reading is. To read a scientific paper efficiently means maximum productivity without wasted effort. To this end, I would like to offer some tips for reading scientific articles that helped me get through my PhD and postdoctoral years (and they still apply today):

• To understand how to read research papers efficiently, go to the basics. Determine the relevance of the article ; start with the Abstract, then jump straight to the Conclusions. Reading articles can be time-consuming but if the aims and implications are clear, then you know if an article is worth the read. This tip works because some articles may be very interesting, but the key implications are sometimes not clearly highlighted. Hence by reading the Abstract and Conclusions, we can avoid spending a lot of time struggling to get the main message.
• Try not to read every scientific article that has covered your topic of interest.  Filter your literature search  by prioritizing the most cited papers within your field and subfield (because it often provides those first insights) and the most recent studies. Let me put this into context–– knowing that evapotranspiration increases with temperature does not need ten citations; however, the effect of some microorganisms on the gut microbiota will depend on the circumstances, hence the details are important and the more we know what can affect our topic, the more we can understand the responses observed.
• Sieving through the available literature in your field is an effort-intensive process, so  focus on reading research articles that have high citations . This works because these papers may likely have been published in high-ranking journals, and also because they have great searchability, which means they have high relevance to your topic.
• Try to  avoid reading older articles  because these references may often become irrelevant and outdated with rapid advances in technology. However, under exceptional circumstances (e.g., seminal work) you can simply find the original study and then perhaps use a newer reference where some practical modifications have been made –– if these are applicable to your study. Established methods or procedures don’t change much unless new equipment becomes available, but it’s critical to stay updated on the latest developments in our field.
• Keywords can help to find important information but also in reading research articles. You may still find some articles that are difficult to get through because of the wordiness or the unnecessary heavy language. For these, use the Abstract and Conclusion to highlight the key findings, and then delve into the detail where necessary.  Using keywords to scan for key passages within the article  can also help you save some time and ensure you read and comprehend the article more effectively.
• If you are starting your PhD and wondering how to read papers efficiently, be sure to  set up notifications for when content related to your specific topic becomes available . While you can search through available literature, setting up publication alerts helps ensure you read relevant literature faster and can stay on top of new developments while you conduct your research.

As scientists, reading scientific papers is not just needed during your degree years but all through your career. And when it comes to tips for reading scientific papers, just remember there is no such thing as too much reading.. Finally, we never stop learning, and we should never do so… science advances very quickly and ever so more now. Embrace it!

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

How Does R Discovery’s Interplatform Capability Enhance Research Accessibility 

What is Convenience Sampling: Definition, Method, and Examples 

What Are The Reading Techniques?

The most productive reading techniques are SQ3R, skimming, scanning, active reading, detailed reading, speed reading, and Structure-Proposition-Evaluation reading.

Reading techniques are approaches to reading that you can employ to become a better and more accomplished reader. The techniques will help you read faster, understand what you read better, and remember what you read better.

This post will look at the different reading techniques, including actionable steps to implement the techniques.

Let’s dive in!

1. SQ3R Technique

SQ3R is named after its 5 steps – Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review. The reading technique is great for comprehension and memory.

This first step in the SQ3R technique is preparing your mind to receive the material. Surveying involves getting a quick idea of the whole material.

Different ways to survey a reading material include:

• Reading the introduction
• Looking at the chapters/ headings and subheadings
• Looking at the pictures or charts
• Reading the summary
• Looking up the study questions 

This step is about preparing questions that you will find answers to in the material as you read.

You can easily create questions from headings and subheadings. For example, if a heading in a chapter is “Drinking alcohol before a workout,” you can ask yourself a question like “does drinking alcohol before a workout have any adverse effect?”.

Creating questions automatically gives you a purpose as you read. It’ll then make you pay more attention to what you read.

Reading as the third step of the SQ3R model is more productive than reading the material straight-up. This is because you’ll already have an idea of the material and questions in mind that you seek answers to.

To help you in this step, make notes as you read. Also, after reading a section, highlight the most important points.

This is where you answer the questions that you’d created before starting to read. Reciting aids comprehension as you digest what you’d read, make sense of it, and get answers to your questions. 

This is simply making mental notes of what you’d read to see how much of it you remember. Thus, this step is all about retention.

You should do the review immediately after reading and sometime after. For maximum retention, don’t wait for more than 24 hours after reading to do the review. You can lose 80% of what you’ve learned if you wait longer than 24 hours before a review . 

2. Skimming

Skimming is a reading technique used to get the main gist of a material. It’s all about going through a chunk of text quickly and less about comprehension.

This does not mean that skimming is speed reading. While speed reading covers a lot of information quickly, skimming is simply sifting through information in quick time. In speed reading, you read the details, but when skimming, you skip over the details.

However, skimming is an invaluable reading technique when all you need is to get the main idea. It can be a great technique to “survey” a material before settling down to read it in detail.

Skimming can also come in handy when you need to review something you’ve read before. When skimming a previous read, you move your eyes quickly over the material to help refresh your memory. 

You use skimming technique when:

• Going through a newspaper or magazine to know what’s covered
• Going through a product review to have an idea of the product’s features

3. Scanning

Scanning is similar to skimming in approach. It also involves going through a chunk of text quickly without any care for comprehension.

The difference between skimming and scanning is on purpose. While skimming is done to get the main idea of the whole material, scanning is done to find specific information in the material. 

Scanning is a reading technique that you’ll find useful in many situations. One of such situations is reviewing a reading material to revive understanding of what was read. In reviewing, you move your eyes quickly over the text, searching for keywords or keyphrases that’ll refresh your memory. 

4. Active Reading

Active reading is a technique that aids both comprehension and retention. It involves engaging with the reading material when reading it so that you’ll understand it and evaluate it based on your needs. 

Some tips for active reading are:

• Ask questions . As you read, ask yourself questions like “what does this mean,” “what is the significance of this statement,” etc. This way, you’ll fully understand each part of the material.
• Look for patterns . Try to see the patterns in the reading as a whole. It helps you bring together all the information you’ve read into a meaningful whole. 
• Highlight and make notes . As you read, highlight important points in the reading material. Even better, write down comments or notes on the book’s margins or in a separate notebook.

When you highlight and make notes, you can easily see the main points anytime you go through the material. To help you identify important points, look for transition words like “importantly,” “in contrast,” etc.

• Link to existing knowledge . Try to understand how what you’re reading relates to what you know about the topic. This way, you’ll clearly see how the information has added to your knowledge.
• Write a summary . Summarize what you’ve read in your own words. Write down the key points. 
• Test yourself . Using what you have read, ask yourself mock questions, and try to answer these. Testing yourself will tell you how well you understand the material and remember.
• Teach . Try to explain what you’ve read to someone else. When you do so, you’re inadvertently explaining it to yourself. So, when you teach someone the material you’d read, you’ll be reviving your understanding of the text and solidifying it.

Active reading is best for academic reading when you have to understand and remember what you read. It is also good when you have to read complex information.

5. Detailed Reading

Detailed reading is a technique that involves carefully reading and analyzing every word for a deeper understanding of the material. Detailed reading is used to extract accurate information from a material.

Detailed reading usually starts with skimming. First, you skim the material to have an idea of what it is. Then you carefully read through.

When doing a detailed reading, you need to look up the meaning of unfamiliar words or phrases. You also need to piece words together for better understanding. You use this technique when reading research articles, reports, and literary works.

6. Speed Reading

Speed reading is a technique that helps you read faster without compromising comprehension or retention.

Speed reading is very different from skimming and scanning. In skimming, you speed through the text to get an idea of what it is, and in scanning, you speed through the text just to find something important.

However, in speed reading, you’re not simply running your eyes through texts. Rather, you’re reading every word, but fast. Importantly, you’re comprehending the text as you speed through.

If you’ve ever felt that there’s so much to read but not enough time, you need to learn speed reading.

There are various steps that you can take to master speed reading. These include:

• Guide your eyes . Run a finger or a pen under the words you are reading. Our eyes tend to fixate on moving objects. So, if you run a finger or a pen under the words in a text, your eyes will follow.

Do this faster than you’ll normally read, which trains your eyes to move faster and to read faster.

You’ll agree that running a finger or a pen under the words you’re reading will not be “cool” if the reading material is on a digital device. Iris Reading has a speed reading tool that’ll guide your eyes by flashing word chunks on your screen at your chosen speed.

• Deadline strategy . Measure how much time it takes you to read a page, then try to beat it. Always remember that whatever can be measured can be managed. 

Simply set a time of 1 – 5 minutes and see how many lines you can read in the set time. Then, set the same time again and try to beat it by reading more lines.

• Adjust reading speed . When speed reading, slow down on the first sentence in a paragraph and increase your speed as you go.

Even automobiles do not come flying out of the garage. Just like a car accelerates until it reaches maximum speed, so start relatively slow and pace up as you go. 

This is very important to comprehension and retention when speed reading. You’ll easily grasp the introductory sentences and follow other sentences more readily as you speed up.

If you need help learning to read fast, Iris Reading is a leading speed reading and memory solutions provider. We have free and paid courses that’ll help you read fast while fully comprehending and remembering what you read.

The speed reading mini course is one of Iris Reading’s free courses. This course is a great way to get started and will teach you how to approach your material more efficiently. You’ll also learn to read fast on the computer screen and other digital devices.  

Another excellent course is the Speed Reading Mastery Course . While this is a paid course, you’ll get great value for your money. You’ll learn advanced techniques to increase your reading speed even further. You’ll learn speed reading strategies for tests like ACT/ SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, and MCAT. In addition, there is a bonus gift –  a “30 Tips to improve your memory” document.

7. Structure-Proposition-Evaluation Reading

This is an excellent reading technique for non-fiction, often called the SPE technique. It involves three steps.

• Find the structure of the text . This is simply studying the layout of the text. You can do this by looking at the table of contents or the headings and subheadings in the text.
• Find the author-made propositions . In each section of the text, find the logical relationships between the author’s propositions. That is, determine how the statements relate to one another.
• Evaluate the final arguments and conclusions . Look at the text’s conclusions and determine whether the statements of the texts actually lead to that conclusion.

Wrapping up

Depending on your reading needs, there are different reading techniques that you can employ. These include SQ3R, skimming, scanning, active reading, detailed reading, speed reading, and SPE reading. Reading techniques will help you be a better reader.

However, knowing these techniques is only the starting point to becoming an accomplished reader who reads fast, comprehends what is read, and easily recalls it. You may also need to take special courses to improve reading speed, comprehension, and retention.

Iris Reading is all you’ll need in this regard. To read very fast while comprehending what is read, consider taking our speed reading courses . To remember all that you read, consider taking our maximizing memory course .

This is a nice way to introduce yourself into different reading styles.

This is a great start to get you going in more efficient reading practices.

It is resourceful site

Click here to cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Average Reading Speed

• By Age and Grade Level

Why should we be concerned about how to improve our average reading speed? The fact is, reading faster makes learning much easier. Reading speed affects our ability to comprehend text.

Free Reading Fluency Training Drill

Scholar Within’s Homeschool Reading Program

Table of Contents

• College Student Average Reading Speed

Adult Average Reading Speed

How to read faster, speed reading debunked.

• Top Ways to Improve Your Reading Speed

Homeschool Reading Program

Average Reading Speed Overview

Reading too slowly impairs our comprehension. When you read too slowly, it is hard to hold a complete thought in place. The action of reading slowly is inefficient. Reading slowly makes it difficult to understand what you read.

Reading too quickly and speed reading can also lead to poor comprehension. When you read too fast, supporting details are often lost. People sometimes skim while reading and miss important parts. This makes me think of the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. This chair is too big, this one is too small, ah, this one is just right. 

When your average reading speed is just right, you read fluently with comprehension.

So, the question remains, should we improve our reading speed? The first answer is yes. If you are a student and not reading at the average rate for your grade level, you should work on improving your reading rate. That will actually be the sweet spot , or as Goldilocks said, “This one is just right.”

Average Reading Speed by Age and Grade Level

The chart below includes the average reading fluency rates by grade level and age.

Please note that the above reading rates do not take into account technical reading. Technical readings will be read slower than the average reading rates above.

In order to improve reading speed, there are specific skills that need to be nurtured. Any student, no matter what their age, can learn to read faster.

How fast do you and your kids read? Take the reading speed test .

Pages Per Hour Average Reading Speed (College Students)

Based on research from Rosalind Streichler, Ph.D., Center for Teaching Development, University of California, San Diego; Karron G. Lewis, Ph.D., Associate Director, Center for Teaching Effectiveness. Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment, The University of Texas at Austin; and research conducted at Cambridge University in England; we can assume that the average college student can read 250 words per minute and that the average textbook has approximately 800 words per page. Therefore, it would take 3.2 minutes to read one page, 32 minutes to read 10 pages, and a little over an hour to read 20 pages. 

The average reader can read 238 words per minute (WPM) while reading silently. When reading aloud, the average reader can read 183 words per minute (WPM).

Previously, it had been thought that the average adult reads at a rate of 300 words per minute. However, Marc Brysbaert from Ghent University in Belgium analyzed 190 studies on reading rates. He found that the average adult reading rate has been overestimated.

Silent-reading adults average 238 words per minute. Adults who read aloud average 183 words per minute.

With more and more new research on neuroplasticity, we know that even adults’ brains can change their brain structure, make new neuropathways, and improve their learning skills. This is done most effectively through consistent practice in short intervals over days. It might be hard to teach an old dog a new trick, but improving your average reading speed is possible, even as an adult.

Reading Fluency Training

How do you improve your average reading speed (without sacrificing comprehension)?

The most effective way to improve your average reading speed is to do reading fluency training . Fluency training speeds up your ability to both decode and retrieve information from memory, RAN (Rapid Automatized Naming). 

A second piece of improving fluency is to strengthen your eye movements (eye training). In order to read with skill, your eyes need to move smoothly across the page from left to right (visual tracking).

So, we should look for a moment at research on eye movements. 

Rayner, in 1997, summarized 25 years of research on eye movements. Reading involves eye movements. These eye movements are called saccades. This is when the eyes are moving rapidly. Rapid eye movements and eye-tracking are separated by fixations when the eyes are relatively still.

Saccade movements typically travel about 6 to 9 letter spaces. They are not impacted by the size of the print. The complete perceptual span is larger, extending to 14 or 15 letter spaces to the right and 3 to 4 spaces to the left. It is the saccade movement to the left combined with the perceptual span length that assures that every letter of every word enters the visual field.

Understanding this visual span perception span combination leads us to realize that efficient readers do this easily. About 10-15% of the time, readers also shift back (known as regression) to look back at the material that has already been read. As the text becomes more difficult, saccade length tends to decrease, and regression frequency increases.

If you skip words, repeat words, or have trouble sounding out words, this throws fluency and the meaning of the selection off. However, these skills can improve with fluency training.

Fluency Training Improves RAN (Rapid Automatized Naming).

• A recent study (Wolff, 2014) showed that such training was widely beneficial for reading achievement.
• To help with reading fluency and visual tracking skills, you should have shapes, letters, numbers, or symbols listed from left to right. Then, have your students read the objects aloud to improve their rapid naming skills.
• Rapid Naming Drills
• Reading Fluency Drill
• Scholar Within’s Online Reading Program

How to Improve Reading and Spelling Skills at Home

Reading fluency training and consistent reading is foundational to improving reading skills at home.

At Scholar Within, we specialize in reading and spelling programs that are designed to improve your kid’s skills faster than just reading books.

How? We do this through bite-sized daily activities. Our activities are targeted at different areas of visual (seeing), auditory (hearing), and tactile-kinesthetic (doing) processing.

Reading and Spelling Program Details

• Reading Speed Training
• Comprehension Strategies
• 20-Weeks of Lessons per Level
• 45-60 Minutes a Day
• Video Spelling Lessons
• Self-Paced, Online, and Offline Activities

Learn More about Scholar Within’s Online Reading Program

Speed reading per se, the thought of reading at speeds of above 1000 words per minute—much higher than the 200-400 words per minute achieved by the average college-level reader sounds like it would be amazing. The problem though is that it is completely false.

Look back at the example of the visual span. All of the text that is outside of that tiny visual field area is blurry. So the idea promoted by speed reading that we can use our peripheral vision to grasp whole sentences in one go is just…biologically impossible.

Additionally, a study conducted by scientists from the University of California, MIT, and Washington University found that there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. “Increasing the speed with which you encounter words, therefore, has consequences for how well you understand and remember the text.”

Top Ways to Improve Your Average Reading Speed WPM

So, when we talk about improving reading speed, we are NOT talking about speed reading! We are talking about improving your reading speed and accuracy along with comprehension to a physically sound rate for your age or grade level. 

• Find your baseline or how many words per minute you currently read accurately. Take the free reading speed test to find out.
• Train your eyes with phonetic reading drills (just takes 5 to 6 minutes a day 3 to 5 times a week). 
• Following the practice, read a short selection to continue the progress made with the reading drill and have an opportunity for comprehension practice.
• Set goals and monitor progress.
• Set a goal for 10, 15, 20, or even 25 more words per minute to pass the specific practice drill. It should take 3 – 4 days to pass your goal. Otherwise, you have not set the goal high enough. If it takes longer, then you’ve set the goal too high.
• Read to your child so they hear the rhythm of a story, book, or selection. 
• Take turns reading with your child every other paragraph or page. 
• Choral reading is where you read aloud at the same time as another reader.
• Choral read with your child with both specific reading drills and stories.
• Choral read selections, rhymes, or poems.
• Reading passages in Scholar Within’s Summer Reading Program come alive with Tap to Read
• Press play to listen and follow along with the highlighted text
• Change the speed of reading
• Change font
• Increase font size
• Turn on and off highlighting
• Try Tap to Read below

Tap to Read  – Read-aloud Technology from Scholar Within

• Level 1 – Track A: Ducks on the Pond
• Level 1 – Track B: Soft and Hard
• Level 2: Seagulls
• Level 3: Flying a Kite
• Level 4: The Harp
• Level 5: Aspen Trees
• Level 6: Antarctica
• Level 7: History of Skiing
• Level 8: Northern Lights

At-Home, Online, & Self-Paced Summer Reading Program Program

This summer, your kids can improve their reading speed, comprehension, spelling, and more in our at-home and online summer reading program. This program is research-based and results-driven. The program takes 45-60 minutes a day and is 4 days a week with an optional Friday.

Learn More about the Summer Reading Program

Reading Speed Test

We have put together leveled reading passages that you can use to time yourself or your child. The free reading speed test will help you understand how your student’s reading speed and accuracy (reading fluency) compare to other students in their grade level.

Go to the Reading Speed Test

Download the first drill of our custom-designed reading fluency training. The first sets of words have extra space between the letters, highlighting or emphasizing the letter or letter combination being studied. The fluency training program organizes the drills according to phonic rules and letter combinations. Each drill builds upon prior drills, providing continual review and mastery of all concepts.

› Download the Free Reading Drill

Download Free Reading Drill

• Name * First Last
• Kindergarten
• High School - Adult
• Sign Up for Weekly Newsletter
• Hidden Date YYYY dash MM dash DD
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Research Supports Reading Fluency

Students who read slowly typically have difficulty sounding out words, focusing, and attending to reading content. As a result, both their comprehension and writing skills are impacted.

Multiple studies by Palmer, Bashir, and Hook found a strong positive correlation between reading fluency, reading comprehension, and writing skills.

If a reader does not recognize words quickly enough, the meaning will be lost.

Reid Lyon, Ph.D., stated in 1997, “While the ability to read words accurately is a necessary skill in learning to read, the speed at which this is done becomes a critical factor in ensuring that children understand what they read. As one child recently remarked, ‘If you don’t ride a bike fast enough, you fall off.’ Likewise, if the reader does not recognize words quickly enough, the meaning will be lost… If the reading of the words on the page is slow and labored, the reader simply cannot remember what he or she has read, much less relate the ideas they have read about to their own background knowledge.”

A 2017 study by Taylor, Davis, and Rastle showed that learning to read by sounding out words (phonics) has a dramatic impact on both the accuracy of reading aloud and on comprehension. Researchers tested whether learning to read by sounding out words is more effective than focusing on whole-word meanings. Their results suggest that early literacy should focus on phonics (letters-to-sounds) rather than on teaching sight-word strategies (whole language approach).

What grade is your child?

Select a grade level to learn more about our reading programs:

Online Kindergarten Reading Program

Online 1st Grade Reading Program

Online 2nd Grade Reading Program

Online 3rd Grade Reading Program

Online 4th Grade Reading Program

Online 5th Grade Reading Program

Online 6th Grade Reading Program

Online 7th Grade Reading Program

Online 8th Grade Reading Program

Save Your Spot

Reading and Spelling Program

• Name (Required) First Last
• Email (Required)
• Monday, August 12th
• Monday, August 19th
• Monday, August 26th
• Monday, September 2nd
• Monday, September 9th
• Monday, September 16th
• Monday, September 23rd
• Monday, September 30th
• Phone Number (optional)
• Get a Text Message Reminder (US only)

By providing your phone number, you agree to receive text messages from Scholar Within. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency varies.

Reserve Your Spot

Summer Reading Program 2024

• Kindergarten (5-6 years old)
• 1st Grade (6-7 years old)
• 2nd Grade (7-8 years old)
• 3rd Grade (8-9 years old)
• 4th Grade (9-10 years old)
• 5th Grade (10-11 years old)
• 6th Grade (11-12 years old)
• 7th Grade (12-13 years old)
• 8th Grade (13-14 years old)
• Monday, July 22nd
• Monday, July 29th
• Monday, August 5th
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Reserve Your Spot: Homeschool Reading & Spelling Program

• Monday, January 1st
• Monday, January 8th
• Monday, January 15th
• Monday, January 22nd
• Monday, January 29th
• Monday, February 5th
• Monday, February 12th
• Monday, February 19th

Free Best Practices Guide

Get this free e-book by joining Scholar Within’s newsletter:

• Name * First Name
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Reserve Your Spot: At-Home Online Reading Program

With Spelling and Phonics

Secure Your Spot

Summer Reading Program 2021

• Monday, September 25th
• Monday, October 2nd
• Monday, October 9th
• Monday, October 16th
• Monday, October 23rd

Midsummer Special

Get $20 OFF

Spring Special

Scholar Within's Summer Reading Program

When You Sign Up for Our Summer and Learning Newsletter

• Name * First

Back-to-School Special

Scholar Within's Reading and Spelling Program

When You Sign Up for Newsletter Teaching Tips

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

$20 Off First Month of Monthly Membership

Get Weekly Teaching Tips

When You Sign Up for Our Newsletter

You are on the list!

Use promo code:

LOVEREADING

to get $30 off After-School Reading Program. Enrollment is now open.

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

The Library Research Process, Step-by-Step

• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Finding & Exploring a Topic
• Finding Books
• Finding Articles
• Evaluating Sources
• Understanding & Using a Citation Style

Reading Scholarly Articles: Step-by-Step

1. Read the Abstract Section

The first step in reading a scholarly article is to read the abstract or summary of the article. Abstracts are always found at the beginning of an article and provide a basic summary or roadmap to the article. The abstract also introduces the purpose of the article.

Take a few minutes to carefully read the abstract of the practice article. Note that the abstract is not formally labeled "abstract" but is called "background and aims." Any summary at the start of an article is considered the abstract.

The abstract should always be read first to make sure the article is relevant to your topic. However, reading the abstract should never replace reading the entire article as the abstract is too brief to be used to fully understand the article.

2. Read the Conclusion Section Reading the conclusion will help you understand the main points of the article and what the authors are attempting to prove. 

3. Read the Introduction Section Now that you have an overview of the article from the abstract and understand the main points the authors are trying to prove from the conclusion, you will want to read the introduction.

4. Read the Results Section

Read the results section. Here are a couple of suggestions for deciphering results:

• If you are a visual learner, the charts may make sense to you.
• If charts are difficult to understand, look over the narrative and then return to the charts.
• Using the charts can help enhance your understanding of the narrative
• Look for works like "important" or "significant" and make special note of these phrases as these usually are signals from the author of an important result.

5. Read the Methods Section Reading the methods section will help you understand how the study or experiment was conducted. It is necessary for other researchers to understand the methods used so that they can replicate the study.

The methods section can also be difficult to read due to technical language used and density of the section. Try circling words, acronyms, and surveys you are unfamiliar with and look them up as those may be important to fully understand the article and may be necessary for future research. 

6. Read the Discussion & Limitations Section

The discussion section is where you will find the researcher's interpretation of the results. The author should answer the article's research question. Remember, you should evaluate the data to form your own conclusions. Don't just accept the author's conclusions without looking at the data for yourself.

Often authors will include a section detailing the limits to their research and their conclusions. The limitation section will usually explain conclusions that could not be drawn from the research as well as areas that future research is needed.

7. Read Through One More Time  After you have jumped around and read the different sections of the article, go back to the beginning and read the article in order. The article should be easier to read and make more sense as you will already be familiar with the main points in each section.

Watch: How to Read a Scholarly Article

Why Watch This Video? You'll learn essential strategies for reading scientific or scholarly journal articles, including:

• Identifying distinct sections (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) and the purpose of those sections 
• How to effectively skim content using the ADIRM process (Abstract, Discussion, Introduction, Results, Methods), which will help you assess scholarly articles' relevance and validity
• Distinguishing between main points and less relevant sub points within scholarly research articles. 
• Learning about and applying these techniques will save you time and effort when working through your course assignments.

Reading Speed Test

Want to start improving your reading speed immediately? Try our Speed R eading Extension for Chrome

Select Difficulty Level

Read the following text:, comprehension questions, current test results, reading speed, comprehension, how your reading speed compares.

Your Last 3 Test Results

Reading Speed vs Comprehension

Frequently asked questions.

Everything you need to know about this free reading speed test and more…

How do I successfully carry out this reading speed test?

Find a quiet place with a stable internet connection for this 1-2 minute uninterrupted test. Select “High-School” or “College” difficulty and click “Start Test”. Read the passage, then click “End Test”. Answer the four multiple-choice questions and click “Show Results” to see your reading speed, comprehension level, and comparison to global averages.

For another attempt, click “Retake Test”. Our large collection of passages and questions allow for multiple tests at each difficulty level. We recommend taking the test at least 3 times to arrive at an accurate average reading speed.

Can I improve my reading speed from the original test results?

Like any skill, reading speed is something you can improve upon with practice and effective techniques. Regularly practice speed reading, minimize subvocalization, use a pointer to guide your eyes, and expand your peripheral vision. Start with easier materials and gradually increase difficulty. Avoid re-reading sections and set realistic, trackable goals.

Consider using a speed reading extension or app. With consistent effort, you can significantly boost your reading speed and efficiency, benefiting both academic and professional pursuits.

What Is considered to be a good reading speed?

The average adult reads 200-250 words per minute (wpm), but this varies based on material and purpose. For most non-fiction, 300-400 wpm is considered above average, while complex texts may require 100-150 wpm for comprehension. People with reading disabilities might read below 100 wpm.

Skilled speed readers can achieve speeds in excess of 600 wpm, but often sacrifice understanding. While practice can improve speed, there’s a point at which one needs to trade-off between pace and comprehension. The optimal reading speed depends on the text and your goals.

Any eccentric personalities that excelled in reading?

Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Oscar Wilde are renowned for their extraordinary accomplishments. These figures, known for their unique quirks, shared a common passion for reading. Their diverse reading habits among many other exceptional traits, inspired creative thinking and allowed them to make groundbreaking contributions in their respective fields. 

Their stories emphasise the pivotal role of reading in nurturing creativity, innovation, and success; no matter how unconventional one’s approach may be.

Listen to Research Papers & Retain More

Featured In

Table of contents, listen to research papers aloud: we show you how, types of research papers, how text to speech works, technical language, length and density, time constraints, accessibility issues, proofreading, benefits of listening while reading research papers, text highlighting, speed controls, lifelike voices, ocr scanning, how you can listen to research papers aloud with the speechify website, how you can listen to research papers with the speechify chrome extension, how you can listen to research papers aloud with the speechify app, scan and listen to printed research papers with the speechify app, try speechify and read any text aloud, frequently asked questions.

Listen to research papers aloud and boost productivity and comprehension with our TTS .

In the realm of academia, research papers are a cornerstone for disseminating knowledge and contributing to the growth of various fields. However, the dense and technical nature of these papers can pose a challenge for many readers. Fortunately, text to speech (TTS) technology has emerged as a powerful tool to aid in the consumption of all academic papers. This article will explore different types of research papers, delve into the challenges of reading them, and highlight the benefits of using TTS, with a special focus on Speechify as a premier TTS app for academic purposes.

Research papers are a cornerstone of academic exploration, acting as vehicles for the dissemination of knowledge and the advancement of various fields. Within the realm of scholarly writing, a diverse array of research papers exists, each tailored to specific objectives and methodologies, including:

• Analytical research papers: These delve into breaking down and examining a subject, often presenting an in-depth analysis of complex ideas or concepts.
• Argumentative or persuasive research papers: These papers aim to convince the reader of a particular viewpoint, often involving the presentation of evidence and logical reasoning.
• Cause and effect research papers: Focused on exploring the relationships between events, these papers aim to identify the causes and consequences of a particular phenomenon.
• Compare and contrast research papers: These papers highlight similarities and differences between two or more subjects, encouraging critical thinking and analysis.
• Definition research papers: These aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of a specific concept or term, often clarifying its various facets.
• Experimental research papers: Centered around scientific experiments, these papers detail the methodology, results, and conclusions of research studies.
• Interpretative research papers: These involve the interpretation of data, literature, or artistic works, requiring a nuanced understanding of the subject matter.
• Survey research papers: Based on survey data, these papers analyze and present findings from questionnaires or interviews.

Text to speech (TTS) is a technology that converts written text into spoken language. This innovative system enables computers, devices, or applications to audibly articulate the content of written material, ranging from articles and documents to emails and web pages.

TTS works by processing the input text through algorithms that analyze linguistic elements, such as syntax and semantics, to generate a corresponding audio output. The synthesized speech can be delivered in a variety of voices and accents, often aiming for a natural and human-like sound.

TTS serves a crucial role in enhancing accessibility, aiding individuals with visual impairments or learning disabilities, and providing a versatile solution for consuming written content in situations where reading may be impractical or inconvenient.

Challenges of reading research papers and how text to speech can help

Studying often involves grappling with the challenges presented by research papers. As we navigate through these dense repositories of knowledge crucial for intellectual growth, one powerful ally emerges to mitigate these challenges: text to speech (TTS) technology. Let’s unravel the challenges posed by academic texts and delve into how TTS emerges as a transformative tool, enhancing accessibility, efficiency, and overall engagement:

One of the primary challenges of reading research papers is the abundance of technical language and specialized terminology. For individuals not well-versed in the specific field, deciphering these terms can be a daunting task. Text to speech (TTS) technology addresses this challenge by providing an auditory component to the reading process. Hearing the content aloud can aid in pronunciation, contextual understanding, and overall comprehension of intricate terms. By engaging multiple senses, TTS assists readers in navigating the intricate linguistic landscape of academic papers.

Research papers are often lengthy and densely packed with information, requiring dedicated time and mental focus to absorb the content fully. TTS can alleviate this challenge by allowing users to listen to papers while performing other tasks or listen at a faster rate than physical reading allows. By breaking down the information into manageable auditory segments, TTS enables users to absorb complex concepts without the need for prolonged, uninterrupted reading sessions.

Busy schedules, whether due to academic, professional, or personal commitments, can limit the time available for in-depth reading and analysis of research papers. TTS provides a solution by offering a more time-efficient means of consuming academic content. Users can listen to research papers during activities such as commuting, exercising, or doing household chores, maximizing the utility of their time and seamlessly integrating learning into their daily routines.

Traditional reading methods can pose accessibility challenges for individuals with conditions such as dyslexia, vision issues, or attention disorders. TTS technology serves as an inclusive solution, offering an alternative mode of content consumption. By listening to research papers, individuals with learning differences can overcome barriers related to text-based challenges, making academic content more accessible and fostering a more equitable learning environment. TTS also addresses eye strain issues associated with prolonged reading, promoting a more comfortable reading experience.

Writing research articles can be difficult and re-reading them for typos can seem even more daunting. Text to speech platforms offer a distinct advantage in catching typos and grammatical errors that might be easily missed during traditional visual proofreading. By listening to your research paper, you engage a different cognitive process, allowing you to detect discrepancies in syntax, grammar, and word choice more effectively. This dual approach to proofreading, both visual and auditory, enhances the overall accuracy of your written work, ensuring that typos are promptly identified and rectified, contributing to the production of polished and error-free research papers.

Listening while reading research papers can significantly enhance the learning experience. Combining auditory input with the visual engagement of reading creates a multimodal learning approach that caters to different learning styles. The act of listening to text to speech read research papers aloud can help improve concentration and maintain focus during the often rigorous and dense process of digesting such content. This dual-input method not only reinforces comprehension but also aids in retaining information by tapping into multiple cognitive channels. Additionally, it can make the learning process more dynamic and enjoyable, potentially reducing the perceived difficulty of understanding complex topics.

Why Speechify is the best text to speech for reading research papers

In the ever-expanding landscape of text to speech (TTS) applications, Speechify emerges as a standout contender, particularly for the discerning academic reader. Navigating the intricate realm of research papers demands a tool that not only provides seamless functionality but also caters to the diverse needs of scholars and learners. Speechify, with its comprehensive set of features and user-friendly design, stands out as the premier TTS app for reading research papers. Here are just a few unique features that position Speechify as the go-to TTS app for the academic community, elevating the reading experience for research papers to unprecedented heights:

Speechify offers text highlighting synchronized with the audio, facilitating better retention and comprehension. This feature is especially beneficial for individuals with dyslexia, ADHD, and other learning differences, who benefit substantially from following along with the text as it is read aloud.

Users can adjust the reading speed to suit their preferences, enabling a customized and comfortable listening experience. Students can easily slow down the reading as they take notes or speed up the reading to meet deadlines or boost productivity.

Speechify boasts a diverse range of 200+ natural-sounding voices indistinguishable from human speech across 30+ various languages and accents, accommodating a global audience and providing an immersive reading experience.

The OCR scanning functionality allows users to convert printed or handwritten text into digital format, enabling students to listen to any digital or physical text aloud.

How to read research papers aloud with Speechify

Speechify, the leading text to speech app, provides an unparalleled solution for listening to research papers aloud, offering a seamless and enriching experience for academic readers. In fact, let’s explore how you can use the Speechify website, Chrome extension , or app to listen to research papers, including how to listen to scanned research papers.

You can listen to research papers straight from the Speechify website. Simply follow the steps below:

• Open your web browser and navigate to Speechify.com
• Sign in or create an account if you haven't already.
• Tap “New” in the left-hand toolbar.
• Click “Text Document.”
• Copy and paste the research paper copy into the text box.
• Press submit.
• Customize the voice, reading speed, and other preferences.
• Click the "Play" button to listen to your research paper with Speechify.
• Enjoy a seamless and accessible reading experience right in your web browser.

If your favorite browser is Google Chrome, you can also listen to research papers by using the Speechify Chrome extension. Here’s a breakdown of how to get started:

• Install the Speechify Chrome extension from the Chrome Web Store.
• Click on the Speechify icon in your browser toolbar.
• Sign in or create an account.
• Select the text you want to read and choose your desired settings.
• Click the "Play" button on the Speechify pop-up to start the text to speech conversion.
• Listen to the content being read out loud while you browse the web, and even adjust settings on the fly.

If you’d like to read research papers on the go, follow this easy tutorial showing how to use the Speechify app:

• Download the Speechify IOS or Android app from the App store or Google Play store.
• Open the app and sign in or create a new account.
• Tap “Add” on the bottom toolbar.
• Choose “From your computer.”
• Choose files and import your research paper or copy and paste text into the app.
• Customize voice preferences, reading speed, and other settings.
• Tap the “Play” button to begin listening to the converted content.
• Use the app’s additional features, such as highlighting text or changing the voice for a more interactive reading experience.

You can even read printed research papers with Speechify. Follow this guide to use the Speechify app to scan pictures of your physical documents:

• Download the Speechify IOS or Android app on your mobile device from the App store or Google Play store.
• Choose “Scan Pages.”
• Grant Speechify access to your camera.
• Use the OCR scanner to take photos of the research paper you wish to convert to audio files.
• Press “Next” in the bottom right hand corner.
• Click “Listen” in the top right hand corner.
• Press “Save.”
• Tap the "Play" button to begin listening to the new audio version of your research paper.
• Customize the settings to suit your preferences, such as reading speed and voice selection.
• Enjoy hands-free learning while you focus on comprehension or follow along as the text is highlighted.

Navigate through dense research papers, craft concise summaries or Google Doc annotations, review social science notes, explore journal articles, read ChatGPT responses, or immerse yourself in academic journals, check emails, and listen to research papers with the help of Speechify. Whether you're a student, researcher, or lifelong learner, Speechify makes it easy to transform any text into speech. Try Speechify for free today and transform your reading experience all while taking advantage of its user-friendly design and innovative features.

Yes, text to speech software, such as NaturalReader or Speechify can read HTML tags and citations aloud, making it easier to follow the structure of the paper and understand the sources cited.

Speechify allows you to easily listen to any physical or digital text aloud. Sign up for free and check it out today.

Text to speech can benefit language learners by improving their pronunciation and listening skills, increasing vocabulary and comprehension, and providing access to a variety of materials in the target language.

For academic research, some of the best podcasts include "The Research Report Show" and "Research in Action," which provide insights into the latest research across various fields.

Some of the best audiobooks about researching include, How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and The Craft of Research by Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb, and Joseph Williams. These audiobooks are highly recommended for academic researchers.

You can listen to any text aloud, including research papers on an iPhone using the Speechify app.

PPT to video converter

Read Aloud: Transforming the Way We Experience Text

Cliff Weitzman

Cliff Weitzman is a dyslexia advocate and the CEO and founder of Speechify, the #1 text-to-speech app in the world, totaling over 100,000 5-star reviews and ranking first place in the App Store for the News & Magazines category. In 2017, Weitzman was named to the Forbes 30 under 30 list for his work making the internet more accessible to people with learning disabilities. Cliff Weitzman has been featured in EdSurge, Inc., PC Mag, Entrepreneur, Mashable, among other leading outlets.

Free reading speed tests to measure your reading speed and comprehension level

Each test only takes a minute or two. Accurately measure your English reading speed (words per minute, WPM) and comprehension level with the largest free database of reading passages.

Reading is one of the best ways to consume information and learn (at least until mind reading becomes reality). Bill Gates reads 50 books a year, at about 750 WPM (words per minute) with 90% comprehension, and attributes much of his success to reading.

Reading well means being able to read as fast or as slow as you need to, while maintaining good comprehension of what you read. This is the essence of what "speed reading" helps you do, and what tools like SwiftRead help you with.

Before you start to practice to read as well as Bill Gates does, you need to measure how well you can currently read. That which can be measured, can be improved.

Take the quick and free test below to measure your reading speed and comprehension level. Note that the tests are in English.

Or, if you want to learn more about reading better, read on:

Some people just seem to be able to read more easily, at least when it comes to reading the "normal" way. How we humans normally read text is that we move our eyes across the words, side-to-side and up-to-down on a page. Several factors determine how well someone can read like this. These factors include: your fluency with the language that the text is written in, reading habits you picked up from childhood and/or schooling, and even how your brain is wired to process different kinds of information.

While some of these factors reflect aspects that you could not have controlled, luckily, reading is still a skill that anyone can get better at. For example, you can choose to read more and increase your fluency with the language you're reading. You can also choose to use a variety of tools and techniques that augment your reading capabilities and help you read more effectively.

Reading speed can be measured. But the idea of a "reading speed" isn't as straightforward as you might think.

Reading speed is often measured in "words per minute", or WPM. This is the number of words read in a minute, similar to how "miles/kilometers per hour" is the number of miles/kilometers traveled in an hour.

But, similar to how you drive a car, different situations call for different speeds. For example, when you read something dense and complex, you'll probably choose to read more slowly so that you can better understand and internalize what's being described. When you read something light, about a topic you're already familiar with, you might choose to read it faster so that you can extract the information you need from it efficiently.

You can use tools like the one on this page to get a sense of what your typical reading speed is. But of course, like when you drive, your reading speed will fluctuate as you read different things. Your average reading speed can even improve with practice or the use of reading tools and techniques.

Being able to measure reading speed begs the question: "What is considered a 'good' reading speed?"

To give you some benchmarks, a typical adult's average reading speed, reading a language that they're already fluent in, is about 250 WPM. Some adults who are voracious readers and who adopt efficient reading habits can typically read at speed of 400 WPM or more. Different reading tools and techniques help you adjust the mechanics of how you read, so that you can read more efficiently.

But being too focused on reading speed is a trap. There's no point trying to read at a certain speed if you can't comprehend what you're reading at the level that you want. Reading is a complex process that involves a multitude of visual, auditory, and other brain networks. So on one hand, we can improve the process and skill of reading to be more efficient. On the other hand, we're all wired a little differently, so, you have to experiment with different ways of reading to find what works best for you!

Reading is a skill. And you can improve any skill. I'd argue that reading is one of the most important skills in life. Because if you can read, you can be transported into other worlds and learn almost anything you want, whenever you want, as long as you have access to books or the Internet.

The skill of reading is a complex process, but there are "mechanical" parts of the reading process that can be improved and "tuned" like a machine to be more efficient. When you have efficient reading mechanics, you can parse through text faster. The mechanical parts of reading can be made to feel almost effortless. Then, you leave more mental energy for the comprehension and retention of what you're reading. With more efficient reading mechanics, you can focus more on the information that is being transmitted through those little dark markings on a page we call words.

Some reading techniques require a lot of time and practice to master. There are also software tools out there, like SwiftRead , that instantly give you more efficient reading, now.

Do you have any questions or comments about reading? Let us know at [email protected] ! We're on a mission to help people read better and we'd love to hear from you.

• Take Reading Test
• Your Past Results

Sign up or log in to save more than one reading test result, and track how your reading speed and comprehension change over time!

Reading Speed and Comprehension Test Instructions:

• Click "Start Test", and start reading the passage below.
• When you finish reading the entire passage, click "End".
• Answer the questions about the passage.
• See the results of your reading speed and comprehension for that passage.

Pro-Tip: Use SwiftRead on the reading tests to read up to 3X faster instantly.

Uh oh, no reading content was loaded. Please report this bug to [email protected] , thank you!

Report an issue with this reading test

Like this reading test tool? Share it with others!

• Listen Live
• Saved items

Shenandoah, IA (51601)

Partly cloudy with afternoon showers or thunderstorms. Storms may contain strong gusty winds. High near 90F. Winds S at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 40%..

Thunderstorms likely. Storms may contain strong gusty winds. Low 66F. Winds NW at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 80%.

Updated: August 29, 2024 @ 6:18 am

• Full Forecast

Shenandoah officials purchased this speed sign from the Iowa Department of Transportation, and placed it on North Center Street near the intersection with Ferguson Road. The sign reminds southbound traffic to slow down to 25 mph when entering a residential area. 

• Mike Peterson/KMA News
• Copy article link

(Shenandoah) -- Motorists approaching or leaving Shenandoah are getting electronic reminders to avoid speeding.

Speed signs dot certain Shen streets

Mike Peterson

• Author email
• Aug 28, 2024

Recently, digital speed signs were erected on the northbound and southbound lanes of Highway 59 near the intersection with Ferguson Road. Speaking on KMA's "Morning Line" program Wednesday morning, Shenandoah Mayor Roger McQueen says the signs were installed through an Iowa Department of Transportation program.

"First off, you'll see two of 'em going up on 59," said McQueen. "Those are being put by the Iowa DOT. There will be one on the south entering town, then one on the north exiting town, because if you come especially from the north, you're going 55, 45, and when you hit the two-lane, you're down to 35. We just want to remind people to be slowing down through there, that stretch in front of the Nishna Valley Church, and so forth."

McQueen says another speed sign was placed on North Center Street near the intersection with Ferguson Road. He says the city purchased the sign from the DOT to warn southbound traffic entering the city to reduce their speeds from 55 to 25 mph.

"There's been a sign there for quite some time," he said. "I'm sure a lot of people have noticed the police have done a good job of monitoring that section in there, because they actually got a vehicle not very long ago that was doing about 53 mph between Ferguson and Sheridan. So, we thought that was a good reminder to have that up there. It lets you see, if you do not turn on Ferguson, if you go straight on North Center, to tell you to slow down. You're going into a residential (area). Your speed is 25 mph."

McQueen feels the speed sign was a good investment by the city. Currently, the mayor says there's no plans to place speed signs at other locations in the community. You can hear the full interview with Roger McQueen here:

The Morning Line Wednesday, August 28th, 2024

At KMA, we attempt to be accurate in our reporting. If you see a typo or mistake in a story, please contact us by emailing [email protected].

Get email notifications on {{subject}} daily!

{{description}}

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Followed notifications

Please log in to use this feature, sign up for newsletters.

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Ag Producer's Bulletin

Breaking news from kma, daily newsletter, derek's blog, click here for latest market futures, most popular.

• Multiple injuries in Red Oak wreck
• Page County Sheriff's Blotter
• Griswold woman charged with theft, unlawful prescription drug possession in Red Oak
• Adams County Sheriff's Blotter
• 1 killed, 2 seriously injured in Holt County collision
• Gilman Cooper, 27, of Omaha, Nebraska
• Don Hargis, 87, of New Market, Iowa
• Pair of Montgomery County suspects booked on warrants
• Red Oak suspect booked on warrants, public intoxication
• Red Oak suspect booked on numerous warrants

Anniversaries

Larry & karen wyckoff, 65, bedford, roger and susan harris-new market, frank & carol fundermann, 65, tony and stacy nurnberg-clarinda.

Who Killed Don Aronow? The Mysterious Death Of A Boating Legend

In the sun-soaked streets of Miami, where power meets pleasure and speed is king, the legend of Don Aronow remains as loud as the roaring engines he built. Although he died over three decades ago, the details around his high-octane life and his enigmatic murder continue to pique the interest of both old and new generations alike. VÉHICULE , a boutique Avant-Garde Transportation magazine, recently took a deep dive deep into the Aronow enigma in their latest print edition. Their article, “Paradise Lost: The Rise and Fall of Ben Kramer,” revisits the case and peels back the layers of intrigue surrounding Aronow’s life and death, shining a light on Miami’s wild boating underworld.

Celebrating Aronow’s Daring Spirit

This is not just a story about powerboats; it’s a story about a man who changed the game in his industry, and whose life ended as dramatically as one of his record-breaking offshore races. VÉHICULE doesn’t pull any punches in their piece either. They clear the air on the facts, delving into the lives of larger-than-life characters like Ben Kramer and Betty Cook, uncovering the brazen violence and drug smuggling that was part of the so-called Cocaine Cowboy era in Miami.

VÉHICULE also produced and released an accompanying 10-minute documentary about the Aronow murder that adds a new visual punch to the story—a stylish exploration of Aronow’s legendary rise and tragic fall. It’s the kind of story that embodies the American motorhead spirit—fast, fierce, and unrelenting. At Boat Trader, we celebrate that spirit. We honor the gearheads, the dreamers, and the risk-takers who push boundaries and chase the horizon. Aronow’s life was a testament to that ethos, and his untimely end a reminder of the dangers that come when ambition races too close to the edge.

King Of Thunderboat Row

For those that don’t know already, Don Aronow was the king of the Miami powerboat scene in the ’70s and ’80s. He didn’t just build boats; he built icons—Magnum Marine, Cigarette, Donzi, Formula. These weren’t just brands; they were extensions of his relentless pursuit of speed and status, celebrated in the circles of the rich and reckless. He mingled with celebrities, rubbed shoulders with dictators, and blazed through the waters with a charisma that was as magnetic as it was dangerous. But on a fateful afternoon in 1987, his story came to a screeching halt, not on the water, but on the hard pavement of NE 188th Street in Miami, known as Thunderboat Row, under a barrage of gunfire.

From The Beatles To President George H.W. Bush

Don Aronow was a man who lived fast and left a larger-than-life legacy. His empire of speed and style attracted a who’s who of the high seas. From white-knuckle boat rides with The Beatles to forging connections with the likes of George H.W. Bush and even the notorious Shah of Iran, Aronow’s circle was as eclectic as it was powerful. He was the embodiment of the American dream: a Brooklyn kid who flipped junk cars, joined the Merchant Marines, and eventually became the godfather of speedboats. But the faster you rise, the harder you fall.

The circumstances around Aronow’s murder read like a crime novel: six shots fired from a shady Lincoln Town Car. The shooting occurred on February 3, 1987 when Aronow was 59 years old, just a month shy of his 60th birthday. Four of the bullets found their mark, slumping him in his seat and forcing his foot down on the accelerator. His prized white Mercedes revved to its limit in neutral gear, letting out a haunting scream that echoed the tension of his final moments. Those moments were witnessed first by an Apache employee who shut off the ignition, but the questions lingered—who wanted Don Aronow dead, and why? The hit had all the markings of a professional job, but the real story has always been as murky as the Miami waters at dusk.

Further Reading

For the full tale of Don Aronow’s larger-than-life existence and his mysterious murder, check out VÉHICULE’s print edition . Their coverage is as intense and driven as Aronow himself, diving headfirst into a story that still captivates boaters, speed junkies, and conspiracy theorists alike.

Editor’s Note: Images and video via VÉHICULE Magazine.

Written by: Ryan McVinney

C. Ryan McVinney is a film director, producer, writer, actor, boat captain, outdoorsman and naturalist. He's the host and director of the award-winning TV show Stomping Grounds that explores boating culture across America, sponsored by Boat Trader. McVinney also directs and produces the documentary series Cult Classics featuring top yacht builders and the extreme superyacht show LEGENDS for YachtWorld, as well the popular Factory Fridays video series for boats.com that visits boat building facilities around the world. He's a regular contributor to leading marine industry publications and regularly tests and reviews boats on his varied outdoor adventures.

More from: Ryan McVinney

What the *!@$ is Thundercat Racing? High Performance RIBS

High-Performance Speed Boats: The Ultimate Guide

Biggest Center Console Boats In The World

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.

Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.

remaining of

Thank you for reading! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Welcome! We hope that you enjoy our free content.

Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in or create an account to continue reading.

Thank you for reading! On your next view you will be asked to log in to your subscriber account or create an account and subscribe purchase a subscription to continue reading.

Thank you for signing in! We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.

Checking back? Since you viewed this item previously you can read it again.

• Glenn County Transcript
• Colusa Sun Herald
• Corning Observer
• Saved items

Supes OK deal for groundwater grant; Sutter County board introduces speed limit ordinance for Berry Road

• By Michaela Harris / [email protected]
• Aug 28, 2024
• Copy article link

The Sutter County Board of Supervisors approved a $2.6 million independent contractor agreement with Woodard & Curran on Tuesday to retain compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

The act allows local agencies to customize groundwater sustainability plans to their regional economic and environmental needs, and mandates that a groundwater basin be managed by a sustainability agency. 

Principal Engineer Guadalupe Rivera said that the Department of Water Resources approved a sustainability plan for the Sutter Subbasin in October 2023, one of 257 plans that were approved statewide. In December 2022, Sutter County submitted an application for $8.53 million in grant funds for implementation of the sustainability plan upon approval. The grant agreement was executed in April this year.

These grant funds will help carry out five components of the Sutter Subbasin sustainability plan: grant administration, annual reporting and model update, monitoring and data gap management, financing planning, and irrigation system improvements for the Butte Water District.

“Although it’s one of the lowest cost components of the five, the finance plan will be critical for the future of the county’s general fund. This financing plan will develop how to ultimately fund the cost needed to comply with this legislation and that does not have an end in sight,” Rivera said.

With this contractor agreement, Woodard & Curran will complete the annual reporting and model update, monitoring and data gap management, and financing planning as part of the grant agreement. Grant administration will be carried out by the Butte Water District, county officials said.

Rivera anticipates expending grant funds by March 2026.

Berry Road speed limit

A new 40-mile-per-hour speed limit will likely be imposed on Berry Road in Rio Oso in the coming months.

The Sutter County Board of Supervisors introduced an ordinance on Tuesday that would establish the new speed limit should the board choose to adopt it on Sept. 10.

Sutter County Development Services has reportedly received numerous complaints of speeding along the rural and residential street. The segment is approximately 0.78 miles long, and most of the through traffic travels from Highway 70 before turning into Mark Hopkins Avenue to access Nicolaus. Residents often travel this road on foot in the evening and have animals that can wander onto the roadway, county officials said.

Development Services conducted an engineering and traffic survey to determine an adequate speed limit for Berry Road, which currently maintains a nonposted 55-miles-per-hour speed limit. According to officials, the survey determined that the speed could be reduced to 40 miles per hour and remain enforceable by law. Average daily traffic volume for Berry Road is approximately 80 vehicles per day, and there were no accidents reported within a one-year period.

Recommended for you

Marysville, ca (95901).

Sunny. Hot. High 99F. Winds light and variable..

Clear skies. Low 61F. Winds SSE at 5 to 10 mph.

Updated: August 29, 2024 @ 3:52 am

• Full Forecast

Weather Sponsored By:

Online poll, best halloween candy, most popular.

• Piece of Hotel Marysville falls
• Bridge Coffee closing its doors, but a new cafe is on the way
• Marysville mayor, councilmember allegedly assaulted on downtown street
• Investigation underway for possible murder-suicide in Yuba City, police say
• Suit filed against Arbuckle district: Former student endured racial slurs, physical assault, lawsuit claims
• Teen band Gas Station Chicken formed at MCAA
• A win for local pups: Live Oak Dog Park opens
• Marysville Taco Festival approaches in tacolicious fashion
• Rivalry renewed: Yuba City routs Marysville in return of ‘Big-Little Game’
• Taco lovers can unite at California Taco Fest and Car Show

Sorry, there are no recent results for popular videos.

Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.

Today's e-Edition

Follow us on facebook.

appealdemocrat

Follow us on Twitter

Community news.

• Marysville woman celebrates 100th birthday
• Livestock auction returns to Colusa fairgrounds
• ADVICE: Are North Americans wimps when it comes to pain tolerance?
• Word On The Street: Community weighs in on Governor Newsom's death penalty executive order
• 120218: Classroom notes Franklin
• 120218: Classroom Notes Tierra Buena
• 120218: Classroom notes Twin Rivers
• C.O.U.N.T. me in for Coffee

Submit a Letter

Express your opinion! Fill out this form to submit a Letter to the Editor.

Vapes redesigned to avoid UK crackdown could lead to more waste, say critics

Reusable varieties unlikely to dent environmental impact of e-cigarette waste, even as they curb battery waste

Vape products redesigned to avoid a legislative crackdown on single-use devices may do little to dent the environmental scourge of e-cigarette waste, experts have warned.

Manufacturers have been evolving their products after the UK government introduced a ban on disposables, due to come into force in April 2025.

On Wednesday, the British Medical Association said vapes should only be sold behind the counter , and recommended stronger regulation of the industry including a ban on the sale of disposable vapes.

A disposable vape is defined as one designed for single use that is not refillable or rechargeable. Five million are thrown away each week, according to research, and a ban was proposed to reduce their environmental impact.

Elfbar and Lost Mary, sister brands that together make up more than half of the UK’s disposable vape sales, have launched reusable versions.

The newer vapes have a liquid containing nicotine in a replaceable pod and a USB port to recharge the battery, allowing the body of the vape to be reused. New “big puff” also have a recyclable battery and contain four recyclable pods of vape liquid.

Critics have said the newer products could lead to more pod waste, even as they potentially reduce battery waste. They said that, given the products’ low cost and a continuing lack of recycling services, consumers could continue to treat them as disposable.

Scott Butler, the executive director at the not-for-profit organisation Material Focus, said vape producers and importers had made the adaptations “to move their products just outside the scope of a likely disposable vape definition”.

The prices of the new vapes are comparable with existing disposables, and sometimes cheaper for each puff. “It is as easy to buy a vape as it is to buy a bag of crisps or chocolate bars. Instead, it should be as easy to recycle one as to buy one,” Butler said.

“Producers, importers and retailers of vapes are still legally required to offer and finance take-back and recycling and 90% of them are still not doing this, so now is the time for them to step up.”

Kate Pike, the lead officer for tobacco and vaping at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, said some vape manufacturers were being “innovative” in redesigning products with the potential to be less damaging to the environment.

However, she added: “The price of the pod products is not significantly greater than the single-use disposable vape. Will consumers treat them as disposable even though they can be reused? The pod products will still need to be taken to a vape retailer and the vape retailer will still have to offer collections and they will still have to send the vapes off for recycling.

“It is likely to be more complex for them as it is quite possible the pod itself (which contains the coil) will need to be collected and sent for recycling separately from the device. I fear there is already little compliance with the responsibilities to collect and recycle vapes and I am not sure this will change.”

after newsletter promotion

A quarter of a billion disposable vapes could be dumped before a ban comes in next year , as most retailers are not fulfilling their legal duty to help consumers recycle them, according to research by Material Focus.

The not-for-profit found that more than 90% of vape producers and retailers seemed not to provide or pay for the return and recycling of single-use e-cigarettes. High street brands and convenience stores were among the worst offenders, providing few or no recycling drop-off points, it found.

Researchers visited more than 700 retail stores looking for drop-off-points or asking if they could get their vape recycled, after seeing the products advertised for sale. Even some that said they ran take-back schemes told shoppers they would not take the products.

An Elfbar spokesperson said the company “refute[s] any suggestion that we are trying to circumvent any proposed restrictions”. It added that it “worked with producer compliance schemes to ensure the costs of recycling vapes are met, and this is also evolving due to the new waste, electrical and electronic equipment directive requirements, which we support”.

The spokesperson said Elfbar supplied thousands of vape bins across the UK through retail partners to support the recycling process.

• Tobacco industry
• Health policy
• Young people

More on this story

Number of UK adults who vape reaches record level, report finds

One in six vapes confiscated at English schools spiked with ‘zombie drug’

Sharp rise in use of high-strength vapes, research shows

Smoking ban in doubt after exclusion from Commons schedule

Women should give up vaping if they want to get pregnant, study suggests

MPs vote for smoking ban despite Tories’ division over policy

What is Rishi Sunak’s anti-smoking bill and will it pass?

Sunak braces for backlash as smoking ban bill to be introduced in Commons

Shops flouting planned UK disposable vape ban need harsher fines, LGA says

Budget 2024: Jeremy Hunt considers new vaping tax and NI cut

Most viewed.

• Share full article

Ask NYT Climate

Will A.I. Ruin the Planet or Save the Planet?

It’s a notorious energy hog. But artificial intelligence can also foster innovation and discovery, and it could speed the global transition to cleaner power.

Credit... Naomi Anderson-Subryan

Supported by

By Steve Lohr

• Aug. 26, 2024

The global experiment in artificial intelligence is just beginning. But the spending frenzy by big tech companies for building and leasing of data centers, the engine rooms for A.I., is well underway. They poured an estimated $105 billion last year into these vast, power-hungry facilities.

That spending spree is increasing demand for electricity and raising environmental concerns. A recent headline in The New Yorker called the energy demands of A.I. “obscene.” But there’s another perspective on A.I. and the environment, focusing not on how the technology is made but on what it can do.

A.I. has the potential to help accelerate scientific discovery and innovation in one field after another, lifting efficiency and reducing planet-warming carbon emissions in sectors like transportation, agriculture and energy production.

Here’s what to know.

What makes those data centers so power-hungry?

It’s the rise of so-called generative artificial intelligence.

Generative A.I. can do a lot — not only analyze data and make predictions, but also write poetry and computer code, summarize books and answer questions, often with human-level proficiency. And that kind of computing needs a lot of energy. A query to ChatGPT requires nearly 10 times as much electricity as a regular Google search, according to a recent estimate .

Researchers had been working on generative A.I. for years, but it really burst onto the scene in November 2022 when OpenAI introduced ChatGPT, the conversational chatbot that became a sensation. Microsoft has invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI and is racing to include A.I. features in its products. So are Amazon, Google and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

How much will electricity demand increase?

There are higher estimates, but experts generally forecast that energy consumption by data centers worldwide will at least double over the next few years. Goldman Sachs has estimated that electricity use by data centers will increase 160 percent by 2030. A recent forecast by the International Energy Agency projected that demand would more than double by 2026.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

• Israel-Gaza War
• War in Ukraine
• US Election
• US & Canada
• UK Politics
• N. Ireland Politics
• Scotland Politics
• Wales Politics
• Latin America
• Middle East
• In Pictures
• Executive Lounge
• Technology of Business
• Women at the Helm
• Future of Business
• Science & Health
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI v the Mind
• Film & TV
• Art & Design
• Entertainment News
• Destinations
• Australia and Pacific
• Caribbean & Bermuda
• Central America
• North America
• South America
• World’s Table
• Culture & Experiences
• The SpeciaList
• Natural Wonders
• Weather & Science
• Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Business
• Green Living

Scholz vows to speed up deportations after Solingen stabbings

Irregular migration into Germany "must go down" after a Syrian man who came to Germany as an asylum seeker was charged with killing three people in an attack in the western town of Solingen last week, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said.

"This was terrorism, terrorism against us all," Mr Scholz said during a visit to Solingen on Monday.

Mr Scholz also said his government would have to do "everything we can to ensure that those who cannot and should not stay here in Germany are repatriated and deported" and that deportations would be sped up if necessary.

He also promised to tighten laws on weapons ownership "very quickly".

The political ramifications of the tragedy started reverberating across Germany as soon as officials confirmed the suspect in Friday’s deadly stabbings was a Syrian refugee.

The alleged attacker - named as 26-year-old Issa Al H. - is suspected of links to the terror organisation Islamic State.

An already heated debate about migration has become even more ferocious.

A day after the attacks, conservative opposition leader Friedrich Merz demanded an end to taking in refugees from Syria and Afghanistan and called for controls on all of Germany’s borders. 



Alice Weidel, leader of the far right Alternative for Germany (AfD), has gone a step further and wants a complete stop to all migration.

Experts say such suggestions are not feasible and incompatible with German and European Union law.

Mr Scholz’s governing centre-left SPD party says Germany remains committed to its legal and humanitarian commitments to help those fleeing persecution.

But his government has also pledged to deport migrants who have committed serious crimes and people whose application for asylum has been rejected.

The suspect in the Solingen attack came to Germany in 2022 as a Syrian refugee. Usually Syrians have a good chance of being granted asylum in Germany.

But his application was rejected and he was ordered to be deported to Bulgaria, because he had already registered for asylum there. Officials say when they tried to deport him, they could not locate him and he remained in Germany.

Now a row has broken out about who was responsible for that failing.

Germany does not generally deport people back to unsafe countries or war-zones such as Syria, or Afghanistan - which would involve negotiating with the Taliban government. But there are calls to change that.

For years Germany has been embroiled in a controversial debate about migration. Local councils say their budgets are stretched. There are also calls to speed up the application process and allow refugees to work sooner which some say would help them integrate into German society.

Given the large numbers of refugees Germany takes in, the country generally copes well, and this year refugee numbers appear to have been dropping.

However, Germany typically takes in hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers every year.

In 2023 just over 350,000 people applied for asylum. In addition, around 1.2 million Ukrainians have arrived in Germany since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Compared to other countries which take in fewer refugees, terror attacks connected to asylum seekers in Germany are rare.

The last major incident was in 2016, when 12 people were killed when an Islamist extremist drove a lorry into a Christmas market in Berlin.

But this latest attack may have a huge political impact.

On Sunday, two large eastern German states - Saxony and Thuringia - will hold key regional elections.

The AfD, which is hoping to do well and may even win the most votes, is already using the attack as part of its campaign.

Within hours of the stabbing, the AfD - referring to the party's regional leader in Thuringia, Björn Höcke - posted a video on social media captioned with the words “Höcke or Solingen”.

Man surrenders and confesses to Germany stabbing attack