4 ms·
There is a "The Science" section, referring to the Blog referring back to the same section, but I see nothing scientific about it. Science does not work by giv
by a3_nm 13y ago
There is a "The Science" section, referring to the Blog referring back to the same section, but I see nothing scientific about it.
Science does not work by giving loads of examples of why the approach "should" work better than traditional reading, substantiated by intuition and "80%"-"20%" figures given with no reliable source. It should instead be validated by experiments.
Here, it is simple enough to validate the approach experimentally: select texts and create simple multiple choice assignments to evaluate reading comprehension, and compare the performance of your method versus traditional reading on random people. The exact protocol would require a bit of care to avoid biases, but it wouldn't be that hard to do.
Without a study of this kind, this is just a gimmicky way to read, backed by some people's belief that it is more efficient.
(Another comment: the example French text looks like machine translation, which makes it hard to understand.)
- rjzzleep 13y agook it's not really my job to prove their app, but to me it seems logical that reducing eye movement leads to higher performance. a quick search on google scholar [1]. i'm happy for them, yet another thing i can stroke off my todo list. tyvm [1] http://www.citeulike.org/group/6810/article/3309870 http://www.citeulike.org/group/6810/article/3309870
- a3_nm 13y agoExtremely interesting. I'm puzzled by this paper, though, and by the number it reports: > 1600 wpm for spritzing (that's > 25 words per second), but even this 790 wpm median rate for standard reading (called PAGE, page 5, column 2, line 2) is something of a mystery to me...
- ipedrazas 13y agoSame for Spanish... makes no sense whatsoever
- frik 13y agoThe german language text could be better. Also some words are broken up, and some very long words still there in full length... makes it harder to read.