'.COPYRIGHTED by WILLIAM ROBERT DIXON, 1948 \\ J- X STUDIES OP THE EYE-I.IOVEYEITTS 117 READIITG OP UITIVERS -rniv PROFESSORS A HD GRADUATE STuDSUTS by W. Robert Dixon, Jr. A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Decree of Doctor of Philosophy In the University of Michigan Goirrniittee in Charge: Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Associate Irving H. Anderson, Chairman Paul S. Dwyer Howard Y. I.IcClusky Donald G. Llarquis Willard C. Olson Clifford. Woody Professor Orlando V/. Stephenson Ann Arbor, Michigan 1948 A 01Q70V7LEDGL03ITTS The writ or v/is lies to express hie appreciation of the suggestions rendered, by the members of the committee. To the committee chairman, Dr. Irvine; II. Anderson, poos eternal gratitude for his patience, his precise instruction in. sci­ entific methodology, and his constant encouragement. The writer is also particularly indebted to Dr. Paul 3. Divyor for aid on the statistical aspects of the experiment. . . Ty/o othor individuals should receive special acknow­ ledgment: Hiss Esther B. Schaeffer, of the University of Michigan1s Statistical Research Laboratory, for aid in the statistical analysis; and Ur. V/arren R. Good, of the School of Education of the University of Michigan, for helpful criticisms of the manuscript. Mrs. Carol Lev/is Dixon contributed to the study by as­ suming more than her share of family responsibilities so as to enable the writer to concentrate on the investigation. W.R.D. TABLE OP C ON'i'SLITS Page AC EHOWIEDGIIETTTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . •..•...................... 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................... iii LIST OP TABLES................. v LIST OP FIGURES.......................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............ ■........'.... II. REVIEW OP THE RELATED LITERATURE................. 1 3 The Concept of Types of Reading Studies of the Relationship between Reading Per­ formance on Different Types of Material Studies of Eye-Movements with Reference to Dif­ ferent Types of Content Summary of Review of Related Literature III. THE PROBLEM .. 20 General Design of the Experiment Relation of Primary Problem to the Design The Secondary Questions Investigated Significance of the Investigation IV. TIDS METHODS A HD CONDITIONS OP THE EXPERIMENT..... The The The The 30 Subjects of the Experiment Passages Used in the Experiment Camera Procedure Measures Used V. THE RESULTS...................................... Treatment of the Data Specific Findings Familiarity as a Factor in Reading Performance 40 iv TABLE OF COHTEMTS (Continued) CHAPTER Page V. (Continued) Types of Reading as a Factor in Reading Per­ formance The Effect of Training in a Special Field on Reading Performance ■• Individual Differences in Reading Performances Studies of Omnivorous Readers The Problem of Rhythm Reading VI. DISCUSSIOH OF THE RESULTS....... VII. SULUARY AI'JD COIICLUSIOUS....... 118 125 Review of the Conditions of the Sttidy Summary of the Results Conclusions of the investigation APPENDICES 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY 149 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE I. AVERAGE NUMBER OF FIXATIONS PER LINE FOR DIF­ FERENT TYPES OF MATERIAL (After Judd and Bu swell).......................... ............. . 11 II. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL RATIOS BETWEEN I,IEAN EYELIOVE’vIENT AND COMPREHENSION SCORES FOR VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF THE FOUR SUBJECT-LATTER AREAS COMMON TO STUDIES OF SEIBERT, LEDBETTER, AND STONE............................................ 17 III. DIFFICULTY LEVEL OF PRACTICE AND TEST SELECTIONS 54 IV. CALCULATION TABLE DEVELOPED FOR USE V7ITII COMPRE­ HENSION SCORES.................................. 45 V. MEAN RATES OF READING IN EMS PER MINUTE AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPARTMENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES................... 48 VI. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA FOR RATE OF READING................................... . 51 VII. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR RATE OF READING BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DE ­ PARTMENTS AND PASSAGES WITH REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT OF FAMILIARITY.......................... 53 VIII. MEAN NUMBER OP FIXATIONS PER EM AND THE STAND­ ARD DEVIATIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DE­ PARTMENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES..................... 54 IX. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FIXATION FREQUENCY........................................ 56 X. SIGNIFICANCE OF TIIE DIFFERENCES FOR FIXATION FREQUENCY BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DE ­ PART],ENTS AND PASSAGES WITH REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT OF FAMILIARITY.......................... 58 XI. MEAN HUMBER OF REGRESSIONS PER EM AND THE STAND­ ARD DEVIATIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPART­ MENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES......................... 59 v vi LIST OP TABLES (continued) TABLE XII. PaS° SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DATA FOR RE­ GRESSION FREQUENCY ..... 61 XIII. MEAN NUMBER -OP REFIXATIONS PER LINE AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPARTI ENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES................. 63 XIV. SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA FOR RE­ FIXATION FREQUENCY........................... 65- XV. LEAN COMPREHENSION SCORES IN PERCENT AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPARTMENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES................. 66 XVI. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA FOR COM­ PREHENSION SCORES............................ XVII. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR COMPREHEN­ SION SCORES BETWEEN THE PASSAGE COMBINATIONS.. XVIII. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR RATS OF READING BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DE­ PARTMENTS AND PASSAGES WITH REFERENCE TO TYPES OF READING....... XIX. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR FIXATION FREQUENCY BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DS• PARTUEIJTS AND PASSAGES v/ITII REFERENCE TO TYPES OF READING......................... 63 69 73 75 XX. SIGNIFICANCE OF TIIE DIFFERENCES FOR RATE OF READING AND FIXATION FREQUENCY BETWEEN PHYSICS SUBJECTS READING UNFAMILIAR MATERIAL AND EDU­ CATION AND HISTORY SUBJECTS READING UNFAMILIAR MATERIAL......... 80 XXI. SIGNIFICANCE OP THE DIFFERENCES FOR FIXATION FREQUENCY AND REFIXATION FREQUENCY BETWSEN TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCES.............. 82 XXII. BASIC DATA FOR EDUCATION PROFESSORS............. 132 XXIII. BASIC DATA FOR EDUCATION GRADUATE • >STUDENTS...... 135 XXIV. BASIC DATA FOR PHYSICS PROFESSORS............... 134 BASIC DATA FOR PHYSICS GRADUATE STUDENTS 135 XXV. 1 vii LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE ■XXVI. BASIC DATA FOR HISTORY PROFESSORS XXVII. BASIC DATA FOR HISTORY GRADUATE STUDENTS Pago .. 136 ; 137 LIST OF FIGURES Pago FIGURE 1. Sample eye-movement records of a physics pro­ fessor (Case 8) illustrating variation in performance from familiar passage to unfam­ iliar passages................................ 50 2. Frequency distributions for rate in eras per minuto for education subjects................. 85 3.. Frequency distributions for rate in eras per minute for physics subjects ...... 87 4. Frequency distributions for rate In ens per minute for history subjects.......... 89 5. Sample eye-movement records Illustrating indi­ vidual differences among education subjects reading the education passage...-......... 91 6. Sample eye-movement records illustrating indi­ vidual differences among physics subjects reading the physics passage.......... 9 7. Sample eye-movement records illustrating indi­ vidual differences among history subjects reading the history passage................... 94 8. Frequency distributions for fixations per era for ■ education subjects.......... 95 9. Frequency distributions for fixations per em for physics subjects.............................. 97 10. Frequency distributions for fixations per em for history subjects'........... 99 11. Frequency distributions for regressions per em for education subjects............. 102 12. Frequency distributions for regressions per em for physics subjects........... 103 13. Frequency distributions for regressions per em for history subjects.......................... 105 viii LIST OF FIGURES (continued) FIGURE 14. Section of an electro-oculogram of a skillful reader..................................... 15. Sample eye-movement records illustrating indi­ vidual differences in the frequency of refixa­ tions ................................ ........ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This has been an investigation of the eye-movements in reading of three groups of University of Michigan professors representing the fields of physics, history, and education. Each professor read a passage from each of -these three subjectmatter areas before an eye-movement camera. designed to b© equal in difficulty. The passages were For comparative and con­ trol purposes, a group of.teaching fellows from each of these departments was' run through the same experiment. The investigation was undertaken in an attempt to obtain answers by the eye-movement technique to the following ques­ tions i (1) Are different types of reading induced by different kinds of subject-matter? (2) How does familiarity with the materials of a given field affect reading performance in that field? (3) flow does specializing on the materials of a given field affect reading performance in other fields? (4) What individual differences in reading performance exist among individuals who have chosen scholarship as a career and who may be presumed, therefore, to be among the very best of readers? 1 2 (5) Vvhat evidence may be adduced for claims which are frequently made that there are Individuals who can read whole “ # lines, or even paragraphs, in a single glance or fixation of the eyes? (8) Do superior readers, as frequently alleged, exhibit rhythmical patterns of eye-movements which remain more or less constant from line to line? The first and second questions constitute the primary issues of this Investigation. of the first question. The third question grows out The.fourth, fifth, and sixth ques­ tions are secondary in nature. In the next chapter an effort will be made to show how the two primary questions emerge from a consideration of the existing literature. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE Excellent histories of the development of techniques for recording eye-movements in reading may be found in several places in the literature. Huey (25) wrote one of the early classics on the psychology and pedagogy of reading, and his volume remains a standard source book. A more recent account of the history of eye-movement recording appears in a new book by Carmichael and.Daarborn (10). In view of the fact that there already are adequate accounts of the history of eye-movement recording in the literature, it seemed unneces­ sary to prepare another account of this history In the pres­ ent work. It should be sufficient merely to note that there are two ways of recording eye-movements currently in use. One method utilizes the principle of corneal reflection, in which a camera photographs a reflected beam of light from the cornea of the eye on a strip of moving film. The other is an electrical method, In which the changes in electrical poten­ tial resulting from the reaction of the eye muscles in read­ ing are recorded on paper tape by means of an ink-writing de­ vice. Hoffman, We liman, and Carmichael (25) have found that results obtained by the two methods are highly related. 3 How- 4 ever, Tinker, after careful study of the advantages and dis­ advantages of each method, coneTudes that "the corneal re­ flection technique of photographically recording eye-move­ ments remains the most satisfactory method for use in read­ ing investigations'."’1 Tinker bases his contention on the fact that the photographic method yields the more accurate and exact record. The photographic method was used in this investigation. The question of the reliability and validity of eyemovement records obtained by the photographic method has al3 o been thoroughly investigated. After a careful review of all of the evidence, Anderson and Morse (5) clearly dem­ onstrated that eye-movement measures plotted from photograph' ic records are both reliable and valid when reading passages of sufficient length are used. The results of their study indicate that ten lines of material are more than enough for group comparisons. The passages used in the present study comply with this requirement. . In view of the fact that the reliability and validity of eye-movement measures seems to be a settled question, no special study was made of this problem either in the present investigation. 1. The Concept of Types of Reading The idea is frequently expressed in the literature that different types of subject-matter reqtiire different types of ^Miles A. Tinker, "The Study of Eye Movements in Reading," Psychological Bulletin, XLIII (March, 1946), 94. 5 reading because of the inherent- nature of the material. Ad­ ler, in the following quotation, has pointed out what to him seem to be the fundamental distinctions between history, science, and.philosophy; History is knowledge of particular events or things which not only existed in the past but underwent a series of changes in the course of time..... The historian narrates the..happenings and often colors his narrative with some com­ ment'on, or insight into, the significance of the events..... Science is not concerned with the past as such. It treats of matters that can happen at any time or place..... Philos­ ophy is like science and differs from history in that It seeks general truths rather than an account of particular past events..... If a theoretic book refers to things which lie outside the scope of your normal, routine, daily exper­ ience, it is a scientific work In contrast a philosoph­ ical book appeals to no facts or observations which lie out­ side the experience of the -ordinary man.-*Efforts to distinguish between various types of subjectmatter constitute only one side of the problem. There is the other question of relating these differences to the method of reading. Several workers have voiced their opin­ ion with regard to both questions. Thus, Arily first points out that,"the extensive treatment of history and literature, for example, contrasts with the intensive presentation of the mathematics content."^ And he then goes on to say that in the reading of history and literature "the reader may skim, read rapidly, or vary his rate of reading as the ideas change .in importance, but in mathematics he must do a de% ortimer J. Adler, How to Read a. Book, pp. 152-54, 156. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940. o "A. Sterl Artley, "Influence of the Field Studied on the Reading Attitudes and Skills Needed," p. 41 In Improving Read­ ing in 0ontent Fields. Supplementary Educational Monographs, NoV OS’. Chicago; The University of Chicago Press, 1947. 6 tailed, careful, and analytical type of reading."1 Similar­ ly, Leary and Gray declare that "reading a literary selection is quite a different thing from reading a passage in mathe­ matics, science, or history..... The ability to skim which is'highly useful-in novel reading has little application in O reading the extremely compact content of science." McCaul has even gone so far as to recommend setting up an entire reme&ial-reading program based on the idea that different types of subject-matter call forth different types of reading. He states that data secured from reading tests usually reveal four classifications of -poor'readers : (1)’ stu­ dents who understand what they read, yet read too slowly; (2) students whose comprehension is poor because they are unable to discriminate between the important and unimportant and to organize what they read; (3) students who comprehend poorly because they read too rapidly and too superficially; and (4) students whose inferior reading speed and reading comprehen­ sion result from a limited vocabulary. In suggesting train­ ing material for each of these groups, McCaul says that "Eng­ lish literature will furnish the materials for speeding up the slow readers; some one of the social studies, the mater­ ial for increasing the pupils’ ability to organise what they read; science or mathematics, the materials for developing 1Ibid. 2 Bernice E. Leary and William S. Gray, "Reading Problems in Content Fields," p. 131 in Reading in General Education. Washington: American Council on EducatTon, 1940. 7 •7 precise, accurate reading." In-general, it may be said that the concept of types of reading is based on the reading rates which seem most appro­ priate for different kinds of material: a slow, careful rate for the detailed and compact content of science materials; a rapid, skimming rate for the story type of content; and a relatively rapid rate for the extensive and expansive content of the social studies. As will be made, clear later, the present investigation was designed in terms of this concept of types of reading. A further effort will be made first, however, to define the problem In the light of the related literature. This literature will be reviewed In two parts* The first part will deal with studies of the relationship between reading performance on different types of material. These studies show that reading performance tends to be specific to the content. The second part of the review will deal with studies inquiring into the nature of this speci­ ficity. 2. Studies of the Relationship between Reading Performance on Different Types of Material Computing correlations between the results obtained for the same group on different reading tests has been a common method of studying the relationships which exist between ^Robert L. McCaul, "Economical Training In Reading at the Secondary-School level," High School Journal, XXI (April, 1958), 118. ... " 8 reading performance on different kinds of content. The idea behind this approach is that it might throw light on the is­ sue of general verstis specific reading abilities. Low corre­ lations migl.it point to specific reading abilities, high cor­ relations to a general reading ability.. Thus, with reference to the way in which people read different materials, Robinson and Hall have asserted "reading in different subject fields is not highly related On the other hand, reading in different topics in a given field is quite consistent."^ Robinson and Hall base this assertion on a study in which relatively low inter correlations were found between reading scores 011 art, geology, fiction, and history reading tests given to 205 college students, but in which a very high correlation was found between reading scores on a test of Canadian history and one of Russian his­ tory. For example, a correlation of only .25 was found be­ tween comprehension scores on art content and geology con­ tent, whereas a correlation of .96 was found between compre­ hension scores on the Russian history and Canadian history tests. Similar results have been obtained by Pressey and Pressey (38), who correlated scores made on four highly re­ liable reading scales with the following outcome: General General General General General Poetry 1 1 1 2 2 vs. General 2 r vs. Poetry r vs. Scientific r vs. Poetry r vs. Scientific r vs. Scientific r = « s = = .85 .38 .35 .31 .49 s .56 •^Francis P. Robinson and Prudence Hall, "Studies of HigherLevel Reading Abilities," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXII (April, 1941), 246-47:1----------------------- ------ Even, when scores on different, standardized reading tests are correlated, the correlations turn out quite low. For ex­ ample, Strang (48) compared paragraph comprehension as meas­ ured by the Minnesota Reading Examination with paragraph com­ prehension as measured by the Iowa Silent Reading Test. . She obtained a correlation of only .28 between the results on the two tests. Similarly, Gates (17) compared speed of reading on the Brown Test with speed of reading on the Courtis Test, and obtained a correlation of only .53 between the two. Re­ sults reported by Broom, Douglas, and Rudd (7) have the same significance, namely, that the correlations obtained between standard reading tests are often low. It Is onlir when the materials of the two tests are similar that high correlations are found. Thus, Paterson and Tinker (36) correlated scores on two forms of the Chapman-Oook Speed of Reading Test and obtained a correlation of .86, Incidentally, the same situation prevails when eyemovement measures are correlated with a paper-and-poncil criterion. Imus, Rothney, and Bear (26), Enrich (14, 15), and Bitterer (31) have all found low correlations when the material read before the camera and the content of the cri­ terion were not comparable. On the other hand, Tinker (54), by using two selections from the Chapman-Co ok Speed of Read­ ing Test as the material read before the camera and scores on the entire test as the criterion, found correlations ranging from .80 to .99 between fixation frequency and the criterion score. 10 The results of the studies reviewed in this section may he summarized as follows: When the materials read are com­ parable or are selected from the same field, high correla­ tions between the results on different reading tests will be obtained. When the materials are not comparable or are from different fields, low correlations will be found. The liter­ ature reviewed in the next section will inquire into the nature of the specificity which results when the materials read are from different fields. 3, Studies of Eye-T.Iovements .with Reference to Different Types of Content The idea that different types of reading are associated with different kinds of subject-matter may be traced to the pioneer work of Judd and Buswell (27). In this study, eye- movement records were made of five university students read­ ing fiction, geography, rhetoric, easy verse, French grammar, blank verse, and algebra. Table I summarizes the results for fixation frequency, the most significant single measure of eye-movements, for the four subjects on whom data are re­ ported In the published account of this work. The table clearly shows that there is some variation from passage to passage and also some uniformity in the pat­ tern of that variation from subject to subject. The notable exception is the case of CB who read algebra almost as effic­ iently as fiction and blank verse more efficiently than easy verse. TABLE I AVERAGE NUMBER OP FIXATIONS PER LINE FOR . DIFFERENT TYPES OF MATERIAL (After Judd and Buswell) Subjects Passages GH Uvl Fiction ............ 6.1 8.5 6.2 8.0 Geography .......... 7.5 11.2 7.9 8.5 Rhetoric .... ....... 8.6 11.7 7.7 8*o Easy Verse ........ . 9.4 lo.1 8.4 . 10.0 French Graramar ..... 10.6 14.1 8.0 11.8 Blank Ver3Q ......... 11.9 16.8 8.5 9.6 Algebra ............ 12.5 14.4 9.5 r-• t CO :PM GB 12 Judd and Buswell have entitled the report of their work, Silent Reading: A Study of the Various Types. They based their concept of types of reading on the finding that differ­ ent kinds of subject-matter tend to be read at different rates. Apropos of this finding, Judd and Buswell have said that "the present monograph has shown that there are mani­ fold variations in the reading process induced by changes in s u b j e c t - m a t t e r J u d d and Buswell have pointed out the practical application of their finding in another place in the monograph where they state that "there is need of train­ ing in methods of silent reading of science material, and there is need of a different type of training in the silent reading of literature." If the differences in the nature of the content are the cause of the variations in reading performance, then there is some foundation for McCaul’s plan of training, since, in general, Judd and Buswell’s sub­ jects read fiction relatively fast and algebra relatively slow. Is the variation in the pattern of the subjects’ per­ formance, as found by Judd and Buswell, evidence that differ­ ent tjjpes of material require different types of reading? The answer to this question is complicated by a number of other questions which can be raised' regarding Judd and Bus■^Charles Hubbard Judd and Guy Thomas Buswell, Silent .Reading: A Study of the Various Types, p. 151. Suppiemehtary Educational Monographs, Ho. 23. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1922. ^Ibid., p. 6. 15 well’s work. First, are the differences reported in Table I significant? Ho statistics are presented in the report to answer this question. Second, was the pattern of variation related to the order of difficulty: of the selections, as de­ termined by the vocabulary load, sentence length, complexity of logic, and so forth? Once again we are left in doubt, since no difficulty indexes are reported for the various passages used. However, Judd and Buswell do state that there were differences in the difficulty of the passages, but the nature of these difficulties are not described and no effort was made to relate the results to such differences in difficulty as may have existed among the passages. Third, to what extent were differences in the familiarity with the materials of the different fields a factor in the variation of the reading performances? Mention has been made of the record of subject OB who read algebra almost as efficiently as fiction. This subject may have been an expert in algebra, ■although we' cannot be’sure of this in the absence of any specific information on the point. Judd and Busv/ell1s study really does not permit a satis­ factory explanation of the variation of reading performance from passage to passage or the variation in the pattern of performance from subject to subject. However, their study was primarily exploratory in nature and could not be expected to resolve all of the qtiestions which this review of their study has raised. Having some of the same Import as the results of Judd 14 and Buswell are data reported by Terry (50), who recorded the eye-movements of six male graduate students reading simple arithmetic problems, numerals isolated in lines, and ordinary expository prose. He found that the prose material was read at a significantly higher rate than either the prob­ lems or the isolated numbers. This finding seems to indicate once more that mathematical material contains elements of difficulty which make for a slow rate of reading. Is that true when an individual is an expert in the field? Tinker (51) has reported the results of a study which in many ways is an extension of Terry's experiment. Tinker photographed the eye-movements of sixteen college students reading a passage of algebra which included a few algebraic formulas. A comparison was made of the eye-movement scores on those lines in. the passage which contained formulas with those lines which did not. Hie results show that all sub­ jects read the lines without formulas more efficiently than the lines with formulas. The group included five subjects who had taken courses in calculus in college. The other eleven subjects had not taken any work in mathematics beyond arithmetic. It is interesting to note that the five students who had taken the more advanced work In college mathematics performed more efficiently than the eleven subjects who had not taken this advanced work. This finding implies that familiarity with the materials of the field of mathematics promotes more efficient reading, although the five subjects 15 with the more advanced, mathematical training may have also been more highly selected and for that reason turned in the better reading performance. In any case, the.question still remains as to how the reading of the mathematics material would compare with the reading of prose. Tinker attempted to answer this question by including a passage of scientific prose as a part of the test material in his experiment. The subjects on the whole read the prose material more effici­ ently than the algebra passage, which seems to lend support to the idea that some materials by virtue of their inherent nature call for a more meticulus type of reading and hence a slower rate. However, on closer inspection one discovers that the scientific prose selection used was a description of an experiment with rats in the psychological laboratory. Since Tinker1s subjects were primarily psychology students, the conclusion might well be that Tinker's study demonstrated the importance of background and familiarity rather than the existence of types of reading for different types of material, inasmuch as all the subjects may be presumed to have been more familiar with the material of psychology than with the mathematics content. A further complication is that Tinker did not equate the algebra and prose passages for objective difficulty.1 "By objective difficulty is meant the difficulty as de­ termined by formulas for estimating the difficulty of reading material. These formulas do not take the factor of familiar­ ity into account. Familiar material may be easy, unfamiliar material hard; but objective difficulty is another source of variation in reading performance. 16 A description of three more recent studies will bring this review of eye-movement studies up to date. All three have followed a pattern in which the subjects read equated passages from different subject-matter areas. Stone (47) photographed the eye-movements of 64 New York University freshmen while they read passages from mathematics, biology, English, educational psychology, a physical science, and a social science. Seibert (46) conducted a similar experiment iising 60 eighth-grade students as subjects and test passages from mathematics, biography, adventure, a physical science, history, and geography. 'Finally, Ledbetter (30) recorded the eye-movements of 60 eleventh-grade pupils while they read equated material from high school textbooks in English, mathematics, science, and social science. In all three studies the eye-movements results varied from passage to passage. '.There y/ere wide individual differences in the pat­ tern of the variation from passage to passage. The individ­ ual differences which existed among the subjects for the same passage within each study were vastly greater than either the Individual or group variation from passage to passage. Table II presents a summary of the critical ratios which existed between the mean eye-movement and comprehension scores for various combinations of the four subject-matter areas which were common to the three studies. Nine of the critical ratios reached the 5 percent level of confidence. Four of these critical ratios involve eye-movement measures and five the comprehension scores on the passages. TABLE II SUMMARY OP CRITICAL RATIONS BETWEEN MEAN EYE-MOVEMENT AND COMPREHENSION SCORES FOR VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OP THE POUR SUBJECT-MATTER AREAS COMMON TO STUDIES OF SEIBERT, LEDBETTER,AND STONE1 Subjects Compared EnglishMathematics Seibert (8th grade) Ledbetter (11th grade) Stone (college freshmen) 1 Fixa­ Regres­ Compre­ Fixa­ Regres­ Compre­ Fixa­ Regres­ Compre­ Rate tions sions hension Rate tions sions hension Rate tions sions hension 1.71 .50 .66 2.88 1.41 1.47 1.34 .77 1.17 1.18 1.39 »4o EnglishPhysical Science 1.12 1.24 2.42 2.62 .27 .24 1.00 1.42 1.65 .73 .03 1.03 EnglishSocial Science 1.56 1.65 2.50 .37 .95 1.04 .30 .79 1.01 .56 .56 3.57 Physical Science1.80 Mat hematics .75 1.90 .18 1.73 1.68 2.26 .54 ---- ---- Physical ScienceSocial Science .42 .39 .00 2.05 1.24 1.25 1.29 .62 ---- ---- ---- ---- 2.23 1.16 1.96 2.27 .39 .39 1.05 .07 ---- ---- Social ScienceMathematics 1In this and all other tables containing critical ratios, a single line under a figure identi­ fies a value significant at the 5 percent level of confidence, and a double line a value significant at the 1 percent level of confidence. 18 The results as a whole are difficult to interpret. In the first place, a comparison of the results of the three studies reveals that there was a lack of uniformity in the pattern of the results. For example, Seibert’s subjects read the mathematics passage more rapidly than they read the English passage, while Ledbetter’s eleventh-grade sub­ jects reversed this relationship. To take another example, Stone’s college freshmen read the physical science passage more slowly than they read the social science passage, while both Seibert’s and Ledbetter’s groups .reversed this relationship. In the second place, although Stone, Seibert, and Ledbetter each stated that their passages were about equal in terms of sentence length and vocabulary level, they apparently did not resort to the use of formulas for esti­ mating the difficulty of material. The present writer ap­ plied both the Flesch and Lorge formulas to the passages used in the three studies and discovered that there were differences in the difficulty of the passages in each study. Furthermore, the writer was unable to discover a uniform re­ lationship between the difficulty of the passages and the eye-movement measures. To give an example, Seibert’s mathe­ matics passage was the easiest of the selections used in his study, and it was'also the passage which was read most effic­ iently by his subjects. The mathematics passage happened to be the easiest in Ledbetter’s study as well; yet her subjects read this passage less efficiently than any of the others which she used. A third factor which prevents confident 19 interpretation of ^ ie Stone, Seibert, and Ledbet­ ter is that in none of these studies were the subjects de­ partmentalized sc that it is impossible to ascertain just how the special interests of the subjects may have affected the variation in the reading performance. In other words, insofar as the eye-movement evidence is concerned, the ques­ tions originally raised by Judd and Buswell's study remain unanswered. 4. Summary of Review of Related Literature .. On the basis of the literature reviewed in this chapter, we can say definitely that reading performance Is likely to vary from one type of material tc another. We cannot say for "sure whether these variations are due to differences in the difficulty of the material, ’whether they are due to the fact that different types of material require different types of reading, whether- they are due to differences in the familiarity of the material, or to what extent both types of reading and familiarity with the material may be factors in reading performance. drawn: ial. In any case, the issue seems clearly types of reading versus familiarity with the mater­ The way In which the present investigation was designed to resolve that issue is described in the next chapter, where the significance of the investigation will also be discussed. CHAPTER III THE PROBLEM General Design of the Experiment Any experiment which seeks to answer the questions posed at the conclusion of Chapter II would seem to require the following conditions: (1) the passages to be read should be selected from different subject-matter areas; (2) these pas­ sages should be equated for objective difficulty by the best methods; (3) the subjects should have been trained in the same content fields as those from which the passages were taken; and (4) each subject should be required to read the passage from his own field, as well as those from the other fields. These conditions were met in the present study by using passages selected from the fields of education, physics, and history. The passages were equated for difficulty by means of standard formulas. Professors and graduate-students from the Physics and History Departments and the School of Education at the University of Michigan served as subjects, and each subject read all three passages before an eye-movoment camera. The graduate-students were included for com­ parative and control purposes. 20 21 2. Re la tIon of Primary Problem to the Design The way in which the main question of this investiga­ tion nay be related to the design of the experiment is as follows: If all of the subject groups read the physics pas­ sage at a slower' average rate than any of the other passages, the inference might be that scientific material calls for a slow, meticulous., and detailed type of reading. Similarly, if all of the subject groups read the history passage at a faster average rate than any of the other passages, the in­ ference might be that history material calls forth a rapid, fluent type of reading. If, however, all of the subject groups achieve their fastest average rate on the passage' from their own field, and if significantly different average rates are not used by the education subjects in reading the physics and history passages, or by the history subjects in reading the physics and education passages, or by the physics subjects in reading the- history and education passages, the ideas that a slow, careful rate of reading is associated with scientific material and a rapid rate of reading is assoc­ iated with history material might be discounted and familiar­ ity would emerge as the principal condition. Finally, how­ ever, if all of the subject groups achieve their fastest average rate on the passage from their own field, and if the education subjects read the physics and history passages at significantly different rates, and the history subjects do read the physics passage at a slower average rate than the 22 education passage, and the physics subjects do read the his­ tory passage at a faster rate than the education passage, then both the factor of familiarity and the existence types of reading for specific content would probably need to be recognized. Closely related to the problem of types of reading for specific content is the question of how an individual's read­ ing performance in his special field compares with his read­ ing in other fields. A common notion is that those persons who continually work and read in a technical field like physics become slow readers in everything. If the results show that the physics subjects read all of the passages at a slower average rate than the other groups, the notion would seem to be supported. However, in that event, another ex­ planation which might be suggested is that physics as a content field operates to select people who are slow readers to begin with, and that training in the field may have noth­ ing to do with their slow rate of reading. The graduate- student groups were included in the study partly to obtain a check on this possible explanation, if it did turn out that the results supported the hypothesis in question. If the physics graduate-students tend to read at a slower rate than the other graduate-student groups, the idea that physics se­ lects slow readers would seem to gain support. If, however, the physics graduate-students tend to read at about the same speed as the other graduate-student groups, but faster than 25 the physics professors, the results might then be interpreted to mean that long specialization in a technical field does slow down a person’s reading generally. Such a finding would be particularly significant, if it was found in addition that the other two groups of professors were generally no slower than the graduate students in their departments. This addi­ tional finding would rule out the possibility that the slower performance of the physics professors was due to aging. On the other hand, familiarity can also be a factor in the read­ ing performance of the physics subjects, that is, both the physics graduate-students and professors might be expected to read the physics passage at a more rapid average rate than the other subject groups because of their greater familiarity with the materials of the field. A comparison of the reading performance of the physics and education subjects on the his­ tory passage and of the physics and history subjects on the education passage thus becomes important. If the physics subjects read the history passage at a slower average rate than the education subjects, and if the physics subjects read the education passage at a slower average rate than the history subjects, a transfer effect might still be indicated, inasmuch as the history passage may be presumed to be rela­ tively unfamiliar to both physics and education subjects and the education passage relatively unfamiliar to both physics and history subjects. A similar line of reasoning may be followed with regard 24 to the idea that specialisation in the materials of history makes for transfer effects in the opposite direction. This idea would seem to be sustained if the history subjects read all of the passages at a faster average rate than the sub­ jects from the other departments, and further, if the history professors read at a more rapid graduate-students. average rate thanthehistory The latter finding would be important, especially if the professors in the other departments read no more rapidly than their graduate-students. Both the no­ tions that continuous reading of technical material tends to retard reading rate and that constant reading of history material tends to promote rate v/ould be rendered doubtful if the physics and history subjects read the education passage at about the same average rate, if the physics and education subjects read the history passage at approximately the same rate, and if the history and education subjects read the physics passage similarly. 3. The Secondary Questions Investigated So much, then, for the primary issues. cillary questions. Mow for the an­ The first of these concerns the individ­ ual differences in eye-movement performance which exist among the subjects used in this study. Other investigations of the eye-movements in reading uniformly have shown extreme individ­ ual variation. Morse (35), for example, in a study of the eye-movement performance of normal fifth-grade readers, dis- 25 covered some children who made as many regressions per line as other children make fixations per line. It will be in­ teresting to see what individual differences show up among a group of individuals who have chosen scholarship as a career and should, therefore, be among the best readers. The second question of an ancillary nature involves an attempt to evaluate claims that there are individuals who can read whole lines, or even paragraphs, in a single glance or fixation of the eyes. There are numerous accounts in the literature of individuals who were supposed to be able to read that way. G. Stanley Hall, Charles Hubbard Judd, and Woodrow Wilson were professors who had that reputation. Another was one of our most illustrious presidents, Theodore Roosevelt. One of his biographers states that "he had the type of mind that can assimilate the printed page in gargan­ tuan gulps, and he was able to retain the major part of his hasty literary meals.”’*' The author of another biography of Roosevelt writes that “nothing distracts him from the book before him. It becomes for the moment the sole business of his life, and he reads so swiftly that he finishes a volume in the time that the average reader bestows on twenty pages.”2 Hot to be outdone, Clifton Fadiraan “boasts of his 150-page per-hour reading speed which enables him to get through what % e n r y Fowles Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt, p. 473. Hew Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1931. 2 James Morgan, Theodore Roosevelt, p. 232. Hew York: Grosset and Dunlop, l9l§. York: 26 he calls the 1jumbo-size1 modern novel with an ease that flabbergasts less fortunate readers."'1' Another case is that of a child prodigy who "had the ability to see in chunks, to read not by words or phrases but by whole paragraphs at a o time." The writer has been unable to find anywhere, how­ ever, the report of a case in which the claim was supported by eye-movement evidence. The subjects of the present experi­ ment contain at least one individual xvho has the reputation of being able to read in so-called "gargantuan gulps." The presence of this individual in the group presents an oppor­ tunity to verify the claims which frequently are made that there are people who can take in a whole line or a paragraph with one swoop. The last of the secondary questions has to do with the idea that a good reader moves his eyes across the line in a rhythmical pattern which remains more or less constant from line to line. pose this idea. Dearborn seems to have been the first to pro­ In the report of his pioneer study of the eye-movements in reading, Dearborn has stated that "it is the writer’s belief clearly indicated by the experiment that one of the essentials of natural and rapid reading is that the reader’s eye should at once be able to acquire a regular and uniform motor habit of reaction for each line."3 And ■^John Chamberlin, "Fadiman for the Millions," The Satur­ day Evening Post, CXIII (January 11, 1941), 60. 2Amram Scheinfeld, You and Heredity, p. 28S. Frederick A.1Stokes Company, 1^39. New York: rz Walter Fenno Dearborn, "The Psychology of Reading," Ar­ chives of Philosophy. Psychology and Scientific Methods, (March, 1906), 115. 27 in another place in the report he states that "the evidence would further seem to show that the acquirement of a rhythmi­ cal succession of movements is one of the means by which the fast reader attains to his greater speed in reading."^ Robinson has reached a similar conclusion, when he states that the eye-movements "may be defined as psycho-physiological dispositions to move the eyes during reading, in a more or less constant manner according to certain cues, mostly kinaesthetic, that act independently of the conscious act of under­ standing the material so long as comprehension progresses smoothly."^ The net result of these views has been the introduction of numerous training devices which seek to improve reading 3 ability by means of eye-movement pacing. The Metron-O-Scope A and the Harvard Reading Films may be cited as illustrations. The results of a study of the eye-movements in reading of a group of subjects like those used in this experiment may be helpful in evaluating these techniques. 1Ibid., p. 118. 2 Francis P. Robinson, The Role of Bye Movements in Read­ ing with an Evaluation of Techniques for 'Their £mpro vemenit, ' p. 43*1 University of'lowa Studies, No".’"3~ low'a Cit'y: 'The University of Iowa, 1933. 3 Trade name for a triple-shutter tachistoscope developed by The American Optical Company, Southbridge, Massachusetts. 4 A series of motion-picture films which present the read­ ing material a phrase at a time across and down the screen in accordance with what is supposed to be the pattern of the eyemovement s of the skillful reader. 28 4. Significance of the Investigation A few words should he said regarding the probable signif­ icance of the investigation. If different types of reading are elicited by different kinds of subject-matter, it would .seem to be both theoretically and practically sound to adopt a remedial training plan along the line of that suggested by McCaul (33). If, however, the most rapid rate is found to be associated with the most familiar material, then speed might best be promoted by the use of familiar material. Con­ versely, unfamiliar material, whether technical or not, might then be used to teach the art of slow reading. The caliber of the subjects of this experiment should render the results especially interesting. A staidy of the eye-movements in reading has never before been made of a group like that employed in this investigation. well do these subjects read? Just how During the past few years a tremendous amount of interest has been shown in speeding up reading. Humerous articles have been written in popular magazines, and book3 have been published, all offering ad­ vise on how to speed your reading. A few illustrative titles are The Art of Rapid Reading by Walter B. Pitkin, Flying the Printways by Carol Hovious, and "Speed While You Read," an article by Robert Bear in the American Magazine. tent is this stress justified? To what ex­ It is possible that even the best readers do not read as fast as commonly supposed. In any event, the results of the present study should make it 29 possible to evaluate the emphasis that currently is put on rapid reading. These are merely a few suggestions as to the probable significance of the investigation. A further evaluation will be made in the discussion following the presentation of the results. This chapter has been written mainly in an effort to present an overall picture of the study. CHAPTER IV THE METHODS AND CONDITIONS OP THE EXPERIMENT Tha specific methods and conditions which characterized the present investigation are described in detail in this, chapter. The chapter is divided into four sections, dealing in order with the subjects, the passages, the camera proced­ ure, and the eye-movement measures or scores. 1. The Subjects of the Experiment The subjects of this experiment were selected primarily from the academic staff of the University of Michigan. A group of professors and a group of graduate-students were included from each of the following teaching units: cation, (2) history, and (3) physics. (1) edu­ Only those professors with a doctorate and an academic rank of assistant professor or higher were included. The graduate-students selected had their master’s degrees and were working for their doctorates. Por the most part the graduate-students were teaching fellows in their departments. It was not necessary to employ sampling techniques in the selection of subjects. There was only a limited number of professors in each department, and an effort was made to 30 31 get all of them. In fact, several professors from other in­ stitutions consented to participate in the experiment when it became evident that additional records would be needed to round out each group. After the elimination of some potential subjects because of illness, a foreign-language background, or extreme pres­ byopia, sixteen subjects remained in each professor group. The same number of graduate-students was used from each de­ partment. The records of these 48 professors and 48 gradu­ ate-students constitute the basic data of this study. 2. The Passages Used in the Experiment^ As stated previously, the passages used in the experi­ ment were selected from the fields of education, history, and physics. Two passages were chosen from each of these fields, one of which served as a practice selection and the other as the test selection. words in length. Each passage was about 200 Because of the caliber of the individuals involved in the experiment, the reading material had to be fairly difficult in order to present any sort of a challenge to the subjects. On the other hand, the material could not contain content which would be completely beyond the reach of those subjects not working in the special field. The passages finally selected met both of these requirements. All passages were equated in terms of objective difficulty. There have been numerous attempts to determine object^Copies of all practice and test passages are exhibited in Appendix B. 32 ively the difficulty level of a given reading selection by means of special formulas. But these attempts have not yielded entirely satisfactory results. One reason is that those working in the field are not in agreement as to what constitutes difficulty. In the second place, the problem of appraising the difficulty of concepts has thus far defied objective analysis. Actualljr, it is possible to find pas­ sages of equal objective difficulty, which undoubtedly pre­ sent extreme differences in their conceptual nature. A quo­ tation from Horn will illustrate this point: ... on the basis of the hypothesis that words occurring in the first twenty-five hundred of the Thorndike list should be intelligible to fourth-grade children, the following sen­ tence should be easy to understand: The square of the sum of two numbers is equal to the square of the first- added to twice the product of the first and second added to tbe square of 't£e second. All of these words are among the two thousand of highest frequency in the Thorndike list. On the other hand the following sentences should be quite unintelligible: Daddy helped me with my arithmetic until bedtime. I got a bracelet, a toy dresser / and some gum for Ghr'i's'tmas. Brother got a VaseFali and a sTed. If/Ts evident that "tiie-difficulty of a“word in any sentence is not determined by the frequency with which the printed form of the word has been recorded but by the probability that the appropriate meaning has been as­ sociated with it by the reader. The Flesch (16) and Lorge (32) formulas were txsed to es­ timate the objective difficulty of the passages used in the present study. Of the formulas available for the purpose, it was felt that these two were most suitable. The Flesch formula relates reading difficulty to three conditions: (1) sentence length, (2) number of affixes, and (3) number of personal references. A passage becomes more difficult as the length of the sentences increases, as more affixes •knirnast Horn, Methods of Instruction in the Social 5tudiojs, pp. 167-68. I\Tew York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1937. 55 are included, and as personal references decrease in number. Conversely, an easy passage is characterized by short sen­ tences, few affixes, and many personal references. The Lorge formula gives a readability index which is de­ pendent on four factors: (1) the number of words in the sample, (2) the number of sentences in the sample, (3) the number of prepositional phrases included, and (4) the number of hard, words. The hard words in this case are words not found in the Dale list."*" Table III gives the level of difficulty for each prac­ tice and test passage as measured by the two formulas. The Flesch difficulty score must be translated into the proper grade level. For these passages it is sufficient to note that any score of six or more is classified by Flesch as very difficult and at the high college level. The Lorge score, on the other hand, is the actual grade level of the passage as measured by the formula. It will be noticed that the Flesch formula places all of the passages in the very difficult category, typical of scientific journals and appropriate for professional groups. to the ninth grade. The Lorge formula assigns the passages However, this formula is not as well suited for estimating the difficulty of material above grade seven. The interesting fact to note is that within the lim­ its of each formula, the passages closely approximate.each •^The Dale word list is composed of the 769 words that are common to the most frequent thousand words in Edward L. Thorndike’s Teacher’s Word Book and the word list prepared by the Child Study Committee of the International Kindergar­ ten Union. TABLE III DIFFICULTY LEVEL OP PRACTICE AMD TEST SELECTIONS - Passage Flesch Lorge (P) Education 7.54 9.10 (T) Education 7.41 9.95 (P) History 7.05 9*79 (T) History 7.64 9.96 (P) Physics 7.22 9.93 (T) Physics 7.48 9.28 35 other in difficulty. The typographical arrangement of the passages was within the optimum, limits established by Paterson and Tinker (37). These investigators spent twelve years giving 66,062 reading tests to 33,031 subjects, and they arrived at some general recommendations for the printing of any material. For the purposes of the present study, it may be noted that (1) most of the type faces in common use are included in the group of approved type faces; (2) 10 point type is recommended as the size of type printers should regard as standard; and (3) "for 10 point type leaded 2 points the limits of ’equal legibility’ range from 14 to 31 picas per line." In the light of this evidence, the passages used in the present study were printed in Old Style Number 7, 10 point type, leaded 2 points, with a line width of 24 picas. 3. The Camera Procedure The ins triunent used in this experiment was the Opthalm2 0-Graph, This camera utilizes the principle of corneal re­ flection. Two telescopic lenses pick up the reflections which are focused on the film by means of a reflex finder. The 35 mm. film moves through the machine at a constant rate of one-half inch per second. The speed of the moving film is used to compute reading rate. ■^Donald G. Paterson and Miles A. Tinker, How to Make Type, Readable, p. 148. New York: Harper and Brother s',r '1940. g A portable eye-movement camera manufactured by the Amer­ ican Optical Company, Southbridge, Massachusetts. 36 At the outset of each recording session, every effort was made to be certain that the subject was at ease and that the instrument was adjusted properly for the comfort of the subject. Each individual was instructed to "read each pas­ sage through once as you normally would to understand the material." Gornprehen3ion Requirement. The subject was next in­ formed of the comprehension requirement which consisted of five Yes-No type questions on each passage.^ The questions for each passage were scored on the basis of the answers given by the professors who had specialized in that field. A count was made of the way in which these professors had answered each question, and the answers that were given the most frequently were .scored as the correct ones. A compre­ hension check-test was thought necessary in order to encour­ age a normal reading performance. The five questions on each passage were general rather than specific in nature, just enough to let the subject know that he was expected to read for meaning without, at the same time, making him hyper­ conscious of the comprehension requirement. Presentation of the Passages. Including the practice and test passages, there were six separate selections to be read by each subject. Each test selection, of course, was preceded by a reading of the practice passage in the same ■^The questions on each passage are exhibited in Appen­ dix C. 37 field. The questions on the practice passage were answered, and then the test selection was presented. Since Schmidt (45) and Tinker (53) have noted a slight gain in efficiency as subjects read a series of selections before the camera, a sys­ tem of presenting the passages in rotation was used within each group in order to cancel practice effects. Securing a. Representative Sample of Reading. Each pas­ sage was approximately 200 words long and was printed on two separate 5 x 5 cards composed of 100 words each. A photo­ graphic record was made of the subject’s eye-movements on the second card of 100 words in each test selection. Stone (46) and Seibert (45) have studied the problem of what portion of a passage should be considered as a represen­ tative sample of reading performance. Their evidence indi­ cates that either the second 100 words or the third 100 words are acceptable, with the third 100 words being read slightly more efficiently than the second 100 words. In their inves­ tigations, the first 100 words were read with the least ef­ ficiency, indicating that it takes a while for the subject to hit his stride. Introspective Commentary. The final part of the experi­ ment was devoted to securing from each subject a commentary of his introspections dtiring the experiment. The data thus acquired will be treated qualitatively in Chapter VI, which discusses the results of the experiment. Each subject was 38 also asked, about his own reading and study habits, and was invited to make recommendations for younger students who might be planning to specialise in his field. Summary of the Experimental Procedure. The following brief outline summarizes the 3teps taken with each subject: (1) The subject was acclimated to the camera situation. (2) The subject was instructed to read the material as he normally would, and was told of the comprehension require­ ment.. (3) After a practice passage in one field had been read and the questions on that passage answered, the test passage in that same field was read and the appropriate questions answered. (This procedure was repeated for the two remaining fields.) (4) The subject was given the opportunity to express his reaction to the experiment and also to outline any reading and study habits he employed that seemed to be most useful in mastering the subject-matter of his field. 4. The Measures Used The eye-movement records were analyzed according to four measures: (1) rate of reading in eras per minute, (2) number of fixations per era, (3) number of regressions per em, and (4) number of re fixations per line.'1' The em was used as the -*Refixations are essentially inaccurate return sweeps, in which the subject undershoots the beginning of the line and must make an additional shift or two to the left before the beginning of the line is located. Re fixations are distinguished from regressions. Regressions occur within the line after the individual has made his first forward shift. 39 basic unit of measurement primarily because it offers a way to standardize the reporting of eye-movement records. Since the em is a fixed distance, it may be used as a standard of measurement regardless of the length of words, size of type, or length of line. Measurements in ems may be roughly trans­ lated to measurements in words by employing the constants 2.3 characters per em and six characters per word. The comprehension requirement provided the data for the fifth measure analyzed in the present investigation. Each subject was scored in percent according to the number of questions he answered correctly on each passage. Chapter V will outline the way in which these measures were treated, and also present the results of the study. CHAPTER V THE RESULTS Before presenting the results of the experiment, it will be necessary to describe in some detail the manner in which the data were treated. This detailed presentation is required because certain aspects of the statistical procedure are new and cannot be found in the literature. The specific findings will be presented after the method of treating the data has been described. 1. Treatment of the Data In order to determine whether the reading performances of the various groups of subjects differed significantly, their scores on each of the five measures were compared by means of the analysis of variance technique. The basic propo­ sition in an analysis of variance is that from samples of different classifications it is possible to derive indepen­ dent estimates of the population variance, one of which is based on the variance between the groups and another on the within-group variance. This fundamental proposition in turn rests on the null hypothesis which assumes that all of the groups are random samples from the same normal population. 40 41 The test of the null hypothesis is made by ascertaining through the P test whether the ratio of the two variance estimates is larger than chance would allow. If the ratio is larger than chance expectation, we should have reason to believe that the null hypothesis is false. If the ratio is smaller than chance expectation, the null hypothesis is not disproved. The usual procedure for analyzing a simple classifica­ tion of variates by means of the analysis of variance is to secure first the means of each group as well as the general mean. Next, the deviations of the individual scores, and the deviations of the group means, from the general mean are computed, squared, and summed. The estimated between-group variance is then equal to the sum of the squares of the devi­ ations of the group means from the general mean divided by the corresponding number of degrees of freedom. In getting an unbiased estimate, it is necessary to divide through by the number of degrees of freedom. The estimated within- group variance is equal to the sum of the squares of the deviations of the individual scores from the general mean divided by the corresponding number of degrees of freedom. The ratio (P) is secured by dividing the estimated betweengroup variance by the estimated within-group variance. The significance of this P may be found in a table of P values. This procedure is acceptable, but it becomes quite compli­ cated as the number of classifications increases. For the 42 more involved situations, a quicker and more accurate calcu­ lation of F may be achieved by changing the mathematical procedure slightly in order to utilize certain features of modern calculating machines. The steps below outline the procedure used in the analy­ sis of variance in the present study.**" This procedure was followed in dealing with each of the five measures derived from the eye-movement records and the comprehension test. First, the individual scores for each group were summed, and then these individual scores were squared and summed. Second the quantity A was derived for each group by the formula A s N£X2 - (£X)^. At the same time an A forall the obser­ vations was calculated. Third, because the problem presented a threefold classification of variates (subjects from three fields of specialisation, two ranks of subjects, and three £ different passages to be read) with replications, it was necessary to set up a calculation table so that an analysis of the three main effects and their interactions could be made. Table IV is presented as an example. It shows the calculation table used in working with the comprehension scores. In one section of Table hension scores for each IV is the sum of the compre­ group of 16 professorson each pas­ sage read; another section presents the corresponding scores of the 16 graduate-students in each department; and the third section combines the 52 scores of the professors and graduate "^The writer is indebted to Professor Paul S. Dwyer for the development of the method of statistical analysis used in treating the data. 2 ' .......................... -— Tt ia to be noted that there is some restriction,on or," or, ♦ jo y : , y q.-ro yo : y , y / r s :;y , r c>v~; jr.; y o :v; oh SM e z o ? * ® wq ■’• ..y ~ /vcy-•••: •y’h" . more involved situations, a quicker and more accurate calcu­ lation of F may be achieved by changing the mathematical procedure slightly in order to utilize certain features of modern calculating machines. The steps below outline the procedure used in the analy­ sis of variance in the present study.’*' This procedure was followed in dealing with each of the five measures derived from the eye-movement records and the comprehension test. First, the individual scores for each group were summed, and then these individual scores were squared and summed. Second the quantity A was derived for each group by the formula A s ITJEX2 - (£X)2 . At the same time an A for all the obser­ vations was calculated.Third, because the problem presented a threefold classification of variates (subjects from three fields of specialization, two ranks of subjects, and three £ different passages to be read) with replications, it was necessary to set up a calculation table so that an analysis of the three main effects and their interactions could be made. Table IV is presented as an example. It shows the calculation table used in working with the comprehension scores. In one section of Table IV is the sum of the compre­ hension scores for each group of 16 professors on each pas­ sage read; another section presents the corresponding scores of the 16 graduate-students in each department; and the third section combines the 32 scores of the professors and graduate^The writer is indebted to Professor Paul S. Dwyer for the development of the method of statistical analysis used in treating the data. _ 2 It Is to be noted that there is some restriction on the randomness of the replications, since 96 Individuals were used in obtaining 3 x 96 mea sures* Since the analysis of variance plays an exploratory role in this study, It seemed wise to use the different operators as replications and to absorb the errors due to operators in the residual- TABLE IV CALCULATION TABUS DEVELOPED FOR USE WITH COMPREHENSION SCORES Graduate-Students Professors Combined Groups Passages Educa­ tion Physics History Total Educa­ tion Physics History Total Educa­ tion Physics! History Total 1 1. Education 1,120 860 1,120 3,100 1,200 1,200 1,260 3,660 2,320 2,060 2,380 6,760 2. Physics 1,320 1,440 1,280 4,040 1,360 1,460 1,260 4,080 2,680 2,900 2,540 8,120 3. History 1,240 920 1,300 3,460 1,100 1,100 1,080 3,280 2,340 2,020 2,380 6,740 Total 3,680 3,220 3,700 10,600 3,660 3,760 3,600 11,020 7,340 6,980 7,300 21,620 44 students. Prom this table it is possible to derive the quantity A for each of the following sources (the number of degrees of freedom, calculated b y conventional methods, have been inserted): Source Degrees of Freedom A 17 478,706,480 Departments 2 233,600 Passages 2 3,754,400 Ranks 1 176,400 Department-Rank 2 1,139,600 Passage-Rank 2 4,797,200 Department-Passage 4 5,478,800 Total (with replications summed) The next step is to measure the interaction. quantity used to indicate the interaction. I is a The I of a first- order interaction, for example, department-rank, is equal to the A of the dual classification less the As of the sources making up that classification. The I of a second-order inter­ action, department-rank-passage, is equal to the A of the total (where variates are the sums of the replications), less the sum of the As of the main effects, less the. sum of the Is of the first-order interaction. The "error term" may be regarded as a measure of chance variation. It is equal to the variation which remains after the variation due to the main effects and the interactions 45 have been removed. It may be calculated by subtracting the A of the totals resulting from the summing of the replica­ tions from the A of all the observations. The various Ps may be computed by using the following formula, Ai ' P = BF a e DP, in which A-j_ is equal to the A of the main effect or the I of the interaction, and in which DF^ refers to the correspond­ ing number of degrees of freedom, and also in which AQ indi­ cates the A of the ’’error terra” and DFQ the number of de­ grees of freedom in the ’’error term” . TableVI may be referred to as an example of the way in which this procedure may be set up in tabular form. For the convenience of those accustomed to using stuns of squares (of deviations) in arriving at P, a sums of squares column has been added to each table. The sums of squares for each main effect is calculated by dividing the A of the main effect by the total number of observations (288). The stuns of squares of each interaction is calculated by dividing the I of the interaction by the total number of observations. Fs may then be computed using the formula, SSi SSe The various 46 in which SS-j_ is equal to the sums of squares of the main ef­ fect or the interaction and DFj_ to the corresponding number of degrees of freedom, and also in which SSQ is equal to the sums of squares of the "error term" andDFQ to thenumber of degrees of freedom in the "error term". It was decided to study the details of those differences to which the previous analysis directed attention by means of the Student-Fisher t test. In each case only the observations necessary for making the specific test were used. With so many sources involved in the present problem, we may expect some differences significant at the 5 percent level of con­ fidence to arise from chance alone. Hence, we have arbitrar­ ily set the 1 percent level of confidence as the point of significance which had to be reached in any comparison before the Student-Fisher t test was applied. Specific Findings Familiarity as a Factor in Reading Performance It will be remembered that the problem of this investiga­ tion was stated in the form of a series of questions. The spec­ ific findings will now be presented in reference to these ques­ tions. The question which will first be considered is implied in the sub-heading above: How does familiarity with the ma­ terials of a given field affect reading performance in that field? If'the subjects read the material from their own field more efficiently than the materials from the other fields, it could be taken to mean that familiarity with 47 a given field is a factor in reading performance. The re­ sults which follow with regard to this problem are presented separately for each eye-movement measure and score. Rate of Reading. Table V presents the mean rates of reading for each group on each passage. The standard devia­ tions of the distributions are also given. The table reveals a trend on the part of the subjects to read the materials from their own field more efficiently or rapidly than the materials from the other fields. This finding is especially apparent in the case of the professors. All groups of pro­ fessors read the materials from their own field more rapidly on the average than the material from the other two fields. For example, the physics professors read the history passage at an average rate of 715 ems per' minute (275 words per min­ ute) and the education passage at an average speed of 677 ems per minute (260 words per minute), but they read the physics passage at an average rate of 938 ems per minute (360 words per minute). The graduate-students did not consistently fol­ low the pattern set by the professors. The graduate-students in education read the physics passage faster on the average than they read the education passage, and the graduate-students in history read the education passage faster on the average than they read the history passage. However, the performance of the physics graduate-students conformed to the pattern shown by the professors. The physics graduate-students read the physics passage at an average rate of 937 ems per minute TABLE V MEAN RATES OP READING IN EMS PER MINUTE AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP THE DISTRIBUTIONS BI DEPARTMENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES1 Departments Passages Professors 1. Education 2. Physics 3. History Physics Education Graduate Students Professors History Graduate Students Professors 774 Graduate Students 841 ^248 797 <£219 798 £*239 677 £ 151 695 £-195 760 £-271 828 £-274 938 £-266 937 . 808 O'254 or 237 a 784 £■250 736 £■ 182 767 £•205 715 £-188 706 £ “149 £ 253 917 . 824 ^210 9~ 240 49 (360 words per minute), the history passage at an average rate of 706 ems per minute (270 words per minute), and the education passage at an average speed of 695 ems per minute (266 words per minute). The trend to read material from one’s own fields more rapidly than the material from the other subject-matter areas was very striking in individual cases. given in Figure 1. An example is This figure shows the eyC-movement rec­ ord of Case 8 among the physics professors. This individual read the history passage at 654 ems per minute (250 words per minute) and the education passage at 690 ems per minute (265 words per minute), but: when he read the. physics passage, he practically doubled his speed, reading it at 1,194 ems per minute (460 words per minute). Moreover, in reading the . physics passage, this subject virtually eliminated regressive" movements. The question now arises as to the significance of the ;£? differences between the performances of the various groups -hy from passage to passage. Table VI presents this statisti- : cal information in the form of an analysis of variance. It displays only one difference that is significant at the 1 per-, cent level. This difference occurred in the department-passage interaction and is in line with the results reported in Table V, which show that the departments tended to read their own spec­ ial passages most efficiently. In a negative way, Table VI demonstrates that there are no significant differences be­ tween the departments when their total rate performances on 50 PHYSICS EDUCATION HISTORY \\ 9 LINES 5 LINES FIGURE 5 LINES I SAMPLE EYE-M O VEM ENT RECORDS OF A PHYSICS PROFESSOR (CASE 8 j ILLUSTRATING VARIATION IN PERFORMANCE FROM FAMILIAR PASSAGE TO UN­ FAMILIAR PASSAGES TABLE VI SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DATA FOR RATS OP READING Source Degrees of Freedom A Total 287 4,360,558,976 15,140,829 17 478,706,480 1,662,175 37,114,802 97,770,968 864,900 8,633,646 46,613,348 10,153,464 108,789,332 433,299,446 298,413,676 25,755,024 128,870 18,557,401 1.29 4.71 339,482 48,885,484 o .40 4.71 864,900 3,003 .‘06 6.76 .30 4.71 29,978 4,316,823 .35 4.71 35,255 5,076,732 1,036,159 74,603,419 fr.,3,9 3.41 .45 3.41 89,427 6,438,756 Total (with replications summed)................ Departments....... . Passages.............. Ranks.................. Department-Rank........ Passage-Rank.......... Departmant-Passage.... Department-Rank-Passage Error 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 270 T* JL Sums of Squares A or I D.P. P 1 per­ 5 per­ cent cent 3.04 3.04 3.89 3.04 o .04 2.41 2.41 3381,852,496 13,478,654 14,377,231 Ol H 52 all passages are considered. It also discloses that there are no significant differences between the professors and graduate-students as far as rate of reading is concerned. In view of the very significant difference that existed in the department-passage interaction, t tests were made of those combinations of passages within a department which from inspection seemed to offer the best chance of being signifi­ cant. Table VII presents the t values obtained. Only two of the t values are significant at the 1 per­ cent level. Both of these differences involve the perform­ ances of the physics groups, and it is clear that these sub­ jects read the familiar physics passage significantly faster than they read the unfamiliar history and education passages. None of the other departments read the various passages at rates different enough to reach the 1 percent level of confi­ dence. It will be noticed that a t value is given for the history professors’ reading of education and history. This t test was made because an inspection of Table V showed that the contrasting performance of the history graduate-students on these passages might be concealing a significant differ­ ence between the rates with which the history professors read the two passages. A t value of 1.66 was derived from this comparison, and it is significant at approximately the 10 percent level. Fixation Frequency. Table VIII reveals the same trend for fixation frequency as was found for rate of reading. This TABLE VII SIGNIFICANCE OP THE DIFFERENCES FOR RATE OF READING BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DEPARTMENTS AND PASSAGES WITH REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT OF FAMILIARITY De par tonent-Pas sage Combination Education subjects: educa­ tion vs. history............ Physics subjects: physics vs. education............... Physics subjects: physics vs. history................. Physics subjects: education vs. history................. History subjects: education vs. history................. History professors: educa­ tion vs. history........... Degrees of Freedom 62 5 per­ cent t 1 per­ cent .95 2.66 . 2.00 2.66 2.00 62 62 4-.12L 2.66 2.00 62 .58 2.66 ■ 2.00 62 1.05 2.66 2.00 30 1.66 2.75 2.04 TABI3 VIII MEAN HUMBER OP FIXATIONS PER EM AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP THE. DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPARTMENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES Departments Education Physics History Passages Professors Graduate Students Professors Graduate Students Professors Graduate Students 1. Education .295 £-.067 .310 £-.071 .319 £-.043 .374 <*“.115 .303 £-.070 .265 £.069 2. Physics .311 tr .060 .323 £ .091 .272 £.078 .299 £5.033 .299 £-.071 .283 £-.054 3. History .313 £>.069 .311 £..067 .310 £=.054 .343 £>.081 .265 (f-.055 .268 £.048 55 result is to be expected, inasmuch as rate of reading and fixation frequency are correlated measures. Rate is really a composite measure of eye-movements. All. of the professor groups made their fewest fixations on the passage from their own field. For example, the phys­ ics professors averaged .319 fixations per em (9.5 fixations per line) on the education passage, .310 fixations per em (8.9 fixations per line) on the history passage, but only .272 fixations per em (7.8 fixatiqns per line) on the phys­ ics passage, The physics graduate-students followed the same pattern as the physics professors. The graduate-stud­ ents in history and education tended to depart from the pat­ tern set by the professors in these fields, much as they did in rate of reading. As in the case of rate of reading, the tendency to make the fewest fixations on the familiar passage- stands out when individual performance is studied. A reexamination of Fig­ ure 1 will serve to illustrate this point. This subject, a physics professor, made .305 fixations per em (8.8 fixations per line) on the history passage, .266 fixations per em (7.7 fixations per line) on the education passage, but only .215 fixations per em (6.2 fixations per line) on the physics passage. The analysis of variance data for fixation frequency are presented in Table IX. Here it is made known that two of the main effects have differences among them which are signifi­ cant at the 1 percent level. The first involves a comparison TABLES IX SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE DATA FOR FIXATION FREQUENCY Source Degrees of Freedom A Total 287 587.4-8 1.34541 Total (with re-plications summed)................ 17 60.78 .21104 Departments........... . Passages.............. Ranks.................. Department-Rank....... Passage-Rank.......... Deoartment-Passage.... Department-Rank-Passage 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 22.92 2.49 2.16 35.63 4.73 44.75 10.55 .08 19.54 3.24 .07958 .00864 .00750 .03663 .00028 .06715 .01125 11.46 1.24 2.16 5.27 .04 4.83 .81 326.70 1.15457 1.21 Error 270 I Sums A,o ox Squares I D.F. F .9..4.7. 1.02 1.79 4.36 ,ds 3 .99 .67 1 per­ cent 5 per•cent 4.71 4.71 6.76 4.71 4.71 3.41 3.41 3.04 5.04 3.89 3.04 5.04 2.41 2.41 Ui cn 57 of the total performance, in terras of the number of fixations, among the three departments, and the other is found interaction of departments and passages. in the Thi3 second differ­ ence is similar to the difference which emerged for rate of reading. However, the difference between departmental per­ formances is a new development. It will be discussed in a later section of the results dealing with the transfer ef­ fects of reading the materials of a special field. In order to ascertain more particularly where the sig­ nificant differences were in the department-passage action, t tests were made of the various combinations of the passages within a department, inter­ Table X gives the resulting t values. Table X establishes a v e r y significant difference between the number of fixations the physicists made on the education and physics passages. It also shows at value approaching the 1 percent level between the performances of the physi­ cists on the history and physics passages. Within the de­ partments of education and history, no significant differ­ ences were found between the fixation frequency scores for any of the possible combinations of passages. Regression Frequency. Table XI presents the average re­ sults for regression frequency together with the standard de­ viations of the distributions. for The same trend is shown as rate of reading andfixation frequency. In each department the professors made their fewest re- TABLE X SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR FIXATION FREQUENCY BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DEPARTMENTS AND PASSAGES WITH REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT OF FAMILIARITY Department-Passage Combination Education subjects: educa­ tion vs. physics........... Physics subjects: education vs. physics................. Physics subjects: education vs. history................. Physics subjects: physics vs. history................. History subjects: history v s . physics............. . History professors: educa­ tion vs. history........... Degrees of Freedom 62 t 1 per­ cent 5 per­ cent .92 2.66 2.00 62 3.05 . 2.66 2.00 62 1.05 2.66 2.00 62 2.52 2.66 2.00 62 1.72 2.66 2.00 50 1.25 2.75 2.04 TABLE XI MEAN N0I5BER OP REGRESSIONS PER ELI AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPARTIENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES Departments Passages Education Professors Graduate Students Physics Professors .042 Graduate Students History Professors Graduate Students .034 .028 .030 <^.018 ^ .019 .057 <^-.038 .037 p" .024 .027 <^.025 2. Physics .035 fr- .019 .037 ^-.025 .024 (^.017 .029 £=•.021 . .030 ^•.022 .031 ^•.022 3. History .034 .026 .030 £=•.019 .033 <^.019 .044 0KO25 .025 ^■.021 .029 £*.024 1. Education Ul (O 60 gressions In reading the passages from their own fields. For example, the history professors averaged .037 regressions per era (1.07 regressions per line) on the education passage, .030 regressions per em (.86 regressions per line) on the physics passage, but only .025 regressions per em (.72 regressions per line) on the history passage. The performance of the physics professors for this measure was even more markedly in favor of the passage from their own field. The education professors, in terms of regression frequency, distinguished hardly at all between the three passages. Of the graduate- students, only the physics group followed the pattern set by the professors. Once again, the variation from passage to passage was especially conspicuous in individual cases. a good example. Figure 1 remains 'This subject, a physics professor, made .042 regressions per em (1.21 regressions per line) on the educa­ tion passage, .041 regressions per em (1.18 regressions per line) on the history passage, but only .015 regressions per em (.43 regressions per line) on the physics passage. Although there was a general tendency on the part of the subjects to make their fewest regressions on the mater­ ial from their own field, Table XII shows that none of the differences in the group performances attained the 1 percent level of significance. It should be stated, however, that an F of 3.13 was derived for the department-passage interaction. An F of this magnitude is significant at about the 2 percent TABES XII SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA FOR REGRESSION -FREQUENCY Source Degrees of Freedom A Total 287 46.39 .16107 Total (with replications summed)................ 17 4.99 ..01732 Departments........... Passages............... Ranks.................. De partment-Rank....... Passage-Rank.......... Department-Passage.... Department-Rank-Passage 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 1.03 .73 .09 1.87 .85 3.64 .75 .03 1.88 .48 .00358 .00255 .00031 .00260 .00010 .00653 _ .00166 .51 .36 .09 .37 .01 .47 .12 41.40 .14375 .15 Error 270 I Sums A or i of Square s D.F. F 3.40 2.40 .60 2.47 .10 o .lo "Tscr 1 per­ cent 4.71 4.71 6.76 4.71 4.71 3.41 3.41 5 per­ cent 3.04 3.04 3.89 3.04 3.04 2.41 2.41 O H 62 level* It is the same interaction in which an P significant at the 1 percent level was found for both rate of reading and fixation frequency. The results for regression frequency are in general agreement with the results for these other two measures. Regression frequency is also less reliable and valid than rate of reading and fixation frequency and, there­ fore, more- subject to errors of measurement. It was not to be expected that the results for regression frequency would be as significant as for rate of reading and fixation fre­ quency. Incidentally, fixation frequency includes regres­ sion frequency. Re fixation Frequency. The number of re fixations per line is the final eye-movement measure which was used in the present study. Table XIII presents the average number of re­ fixations made by each group on each passage. Table XIII shows a continuation of the trend established for the other eye-movement measures. All- professor groups made their fewest inaccurate return sweeps on the material in their own field. For example, the education professors aver­ aged .40 refixations per line on the education passage, .4-6 r'efixations per line on the history passage, and .48 re fixa­ tions per line on the physics passage. The trend for the two other professor groups is even more pronounced. Once again, the graduate-students in history and education deviate from the pattern established by the professors in these depart­ ments. However, the history and education graduate-students TABIE XIII MEAN HUMBER OF REFIXATIONS PER LINE AND TBE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPARTMENTS FOR ALL PASSAGES Departments Physics Education History Passages Professors 1. Education 2. Physics 3. History Graduate Students Professors Graduate Students Professors Graduate Students .40 .30 .46 ^.29 .45 .25 p- .53 .47 ✓=•.34 .21 (P-.20 .48 ^-.35 .44 .32 .41 ^.35 .51 ^.29 .43 ^.51 cP-.17 .46 ^.32 .52 ^.30 .63 ^.24 .55 .32 ^.28 .27 «p.20 .52 *>•27 .30 03 03 64 made their fewest refixations on their most rapidly read passages, which suggests that a relationship exists between rate and refixation frequency. Table XIV summarizes the analysis of variance data for refixation frequency. Only the P for the departmental com­ parison was found to be significant at the 1 percent level. This.difference will be discussed in the section of the re­ sults dealing with the effect of special training on reading habits. Comprehension Scores. Table XV gives the mean compre­ hension scores for each group on each passage. In keeping with the practice which has been adopted in presenting these results, the standard deviations of the distributions are also included. It is evident from Table XV that the physics subjects made the highest as well as the lowest comprehension scores. They averaged 90.6 percent on the physics questions, but only 63.1 percent on the history questions and only 64.3 percent on the education questions. Actually, every depart­ ment averaged higher in comprehension on the physics ques­ tions than on any other set of questions. The education subjects averaged 72.5 percent on the education test, 73.1 percent on the history test, and 83.7 percent on the physics test, while the history subjects averaged 74.3 percent on the education questions, 79.3 percent on the physics questions, and 74.3 percent on the history questions. TABLE XIV SUIffilARY OP ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE LATA POR REFIXATION FREQUENCY Source Degrees of Freedom A Total 287 7078.07 24.57663 Total (with replications summed)............. .. 17 861.05 2.98975 Departments........... Passages.............. Ranks.................. Department-Rank....... Passage—Rank••••••••••• Department-Passage.... Department-Rank-Passage 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 468.77 19.07 15.55 628.31 37.91 589.16 144.01 : 3.31 101.32 109.04 1.62767 .06621 .05592 .50003 .01149 .35180 .37861 234.38 9.53 15.53 72.00 1.65 25 .35 27.52 6217.02 21.58687 23.05 Error 270 I- Sitms of Squares A or I D.P. P .41 .67 3.13 .0*7 1.10 1.19 1 per­ cent 5 per­ cent 4.71 4.71 6.76 4.71 4.71 3.41 3.41 3.04 3.04 3.89 3.04 3.04 2.41 2.41 05 05 TABUS XV MEAN COMPREHENSION SCORES IN PERCENT AND THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP THE DISTRIBUTIONS BY DEPARTMENTS POR .ALL PASSAGES Departments Passages Professors 1. Education 2. Physics 3. History Graduate Students Hist ory Physics Education Professors Graduate Students Professors 70.0 Graduate Students 70.0 «^21.9 75.0 ^■20.0 12.6 57.5 ? 20.4 68.7 ^ 19.3- 81.2 67.5 f 15.5 ? 32.0 53.7 ^ 23.8 80.0, 78.7 ^*24.8 78.7 . 35.0 67 The tendency to score higher on the physics questions shows up in Table XVI, where the analysis of variance data for the comprehension scores are summarized. An P of 14.81 was derived when the total scores on the various tests were compared. It is the only instance to be found in this table of a difference significant at the 1 percent level. In ac­ cordance with the procedure being followed, t tests were made comparing the comprehension scores on each passage’s questions. Table XVII presents the resulting t values. The t test comparing the scores on the education and history passages resulted in a value that was not significant. However, when comprehension on the physics passage was com­ pared with comprehension on the other two passages, differ­ ences significant at better than the 1 percent level were found. Why the subjects tended to score higher on the phys­ ics questions is not clear. It is possible that the questions on the physics passage were easier than the questions on the other passages. A possible source of criticism are the low average com­ prehension scores of the physics subjects on the education and history passages. The average performances of the physics professors on the tests for these passages were hardly-better than chance. The question may be raised whether they actually read the material and consequently whether the results for these passages are valid. On the other hand, it Is interest­ ing to note the relationship which existed between the compre­ hension 30ores and the eye-movement results for the physics v-X';.o;:-\ 1 / 4 - - : vy ....... .. v,V-'. -I; ol. TABUS XVI SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BATA FOR COMPREHENSION SCORES Source Degrees of Freedom A Total 287 41,990,000 145,798 Total (with replications summed)................ 17 7,768,400 26,973 Departments........... Passages.............. Ranks.................. Depar tment-Rarik....... Passage-Rank.......... Department-Passage.... Department-Rank-Passage 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 253,600 3,754,400 176,400 1,139,600 4,797,200 5,478,800 116,800 811 .92 13,506 1,877,200 2AmB1 612 176,400 1.39 2,533 364,300 2.88 433,200 5.42 3,008 372,700 2.94 5,176 129,300 1.02 1,795 Error 270 I 729,600 866,400 1,490,800 517,200 Sums of Squares 34,221,600 118,825 A or I D.F. F’ 1 per­ 5 per­ cent cent 4.71 4.71 6.76 4.71 4.71 3.41 3.41 3.04 5.04 3.89 3.04 3.04 2.4-1 2.41 126,747 o CD TABLE XVII SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR COMPREHENSION SCORES BETWEEN THE PASSAGE COMBINATIONS Passages Compared Degrees of Freedom Education vs. Physics....... 190 Education vs. History....... 190 Physics vs. History......... 190 t .06 1 per­ cent 5 per­ cent 2.60 1.97 2.60 1.97 2.60 1.97 70 subjects, Table V has disclosed that this group read the physics passage more rapidly than any other group read any passage. It also shows that the physics subjects read the history and education passages at a slower rate than any other group read any passage. Turning to Table X V , we find that the physics subjects made a comprehension score on the physics passage that was the highest made by any group on any passage. Conversely, the scores of the physics subjects on the other two passages were the lowest recorded. These findings are strictly in line with the relationship which is to be expected between rate and comprehension. Previous re­ search has shown that rapid rate and good comprehension are associated and that slow rate and poor comprehension go to­ gether. It is not so much that the physics subjects did not read the education and history passages as that they had dif­ ficulty comprehending the material. The eye-movements were affected adversely by the comprehending difficulty, which is exactly what should happen, if the reading performance is normal. Mien it comes to evaluating the validity of the find­ ings of this study, these results for the physics subjects constitute one of the greatest sources of encouragement. Summary. To summarize the results presented in this section, the following statements may be made: (1) All of the professor groups tended to read the pas­ sage from their own field more efficiently than the passages from the other fields. 71 (2) Of the graduate-student groups, only the physics students followed the pattern set by the professors. (3) The education graduate-students tended to read the physics passage slightly more efficiently than the education passage. (4) The history graduate-students tended to read the education passage slightly more efficiently than the history passage. (5) The differences in favor of the passage from the subjects’ own field were statistically significant only in the case of the physics subjects and then only for rate of reading and fixation frequency. (6) The differences in favor of the familiar passage approached statistical significance in the case of the his­ tory professors for rate of reading on the education versus history passage comparison and in the case of all the history subjects for fixation frequency on the history versus physics passage comparison. These results will be evaluated in Chapter VI, which is reserved for a discussion of all of the specific findings of this research. Types of Reading as a Factor in Reading Performance In Chapter III it was explained how the design of this experiment permits a test of the hypothesis that different types of subject-matter elicit different types of reading. 72 The point was made that if all the subject groups read, the physics passage at slower average rates than any other pas­ sage, it might be inferred that scientific material calls for a slow, meticulous type of reading, and that if all of the subject groups had their highest average rate on the his­ tory passage, it might bo deduced that history material elic­ its a rapid rate of reading. The results already presented, however, have shown that no passage was consistently read slower or faster by all the subject groups. In order to make a further attempt to uncover types of reading, it becomes necessary, therefore, to resort to the other approach which was mentioned. This other approach involves specific compar­ isons of the performances of the various departments on un­ familiar passages. If the education subjects read the phys­ ics and history passages at significantly different rates, if the history subjects read the physics passage at a sig­ nificantly slower average rate than the education passage, and if the physics subjects read the history passage at a significantly faster average rate than the education passage, it might be inferred that types of reading play at least a part in reading performance. And so, t tests were made of these comparisons for those measures which showed a signifi­ cant difference in the analysis of variance. Rate of Reading. Table XVIII presents the t values which were obtained for rate of reading. It is evident from Table XVIII that the education subjects did not read the his- TABLE XVIII SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR RATE OF READING BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DEPARTMENTS AND PASSAGES WITH REFERENCE TO TYPES OF READING De par tment-Pas sage Combination Degrees of Freedom t 1 per­ cent 5 per­ cent Education subjects: physics vs. history........ 62 .73 2.66 2.00 History subjects: education vs. physics....... 62 .20 2.66 2.00 Physics subjects: education vs. history...... 62 .58 2.66 2.00 74 tory and physics passages at significantly different rates, that the history subjects did not read the physics passage significantly slower than the education passage, and that thephysios subjects did not read the history passage significant­ ly faster than the education passage. On the basis of those results, wo may state that the present study has not identi­ fied either a slow rate of reading for the physics passage or a fast rate of reading for the history passage. Fixation Frequency. Since we have not been able to iden­ tify special types of reading in terms of the rate scores, it is not to be expected that the results for fixation frequency will be any different, fable XIX presents the t values in­ volving the three comparisons for this measure. Nothing in these results gives encouragement to the idea, that different types of material require different types of reading. fhe education subjects did not make a significantly different number of fixations on the history and physics passages, the history subjects did not make significantly more fixations on the physics passage than on the education passage, and the physics subjects did not make significantly fewer fixations on the history passage than on the education passage. Regression Frequency. This is one of the eye-movement measures for which no significant F values were found in the analysis of variance. Hence, no t values were computed. The results for regression frequency may be added to the negative TABLE X K SIGNIFICANCE OP THE DIFFERENCES FOR FIXATION FREQUENCY BETWEEN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF DSPARTI.SNTS AND PASSAGES V/ITH REFERENCE TO TYPES OF READING Departme nt-Pa ssage Combination Degrees of Freedom t 1 per­ cent 5 per­ cent Education subjects: history vs. physics......... 62 .57 2.66 2.00 History subjects: education vs. physics....... 62 .42 2.66 2.00 Physics subjects: education vs. history....... 62 .95 2.66 2.00 -3 Cn 76 side of the ledger along with the results for rate of reading and fixation frequency. Re fixation Frequency, there is no evidence, either, that the number of inaccurate return sweeps an individual makes has any relation to types of reading. Table XIV shows a significant difference for this measure when the total de­ partmental performances were compared. However, this differ­ ence is not related to the problem of types of reading. All departmental differences are taken up in the next section which deals with the effect of special training on reading habits. Summary. The results of this section may be summarized as follows: (1) Ho convincing evidence of types of reading has been obtained. The following specific findings support this state­ ment : (a) The education subjects did not read the physics and history passages at significantly different rates. (b) The history subjects did not read the physics passage at a significantly slower rate than the educa­ tion passage. (c) The physics subjects did not read the history passage significantly faster than the education passage. (2) The above statements apply not only to rate of read­ ing but also to fixation frequency, regression frequency, and 77 re fixation frequency. The Effect of Training in _a Special Pie Id on Reading Perf ormance In relating this question to the design of the experi­ ment, it was stated that if the physics subjects read all of the passages at a slower rate than the other groups, the in­ terpretation raight be that constant reading of technical ma­ terial serves to hamper rate on all materials. It was also stated that if the history subjects read all of the passages at a faster rate than the other groups, the inference in that case might be that wide reading of history material serves to establish a rapid rate for other materials. These statements do not take into account the possibility that physics selects people who are slow readers to begin with, and perhaps that history selects individuals who are rapid readers at the be­ ginning. The design, therefore, called for a comparison of the professors with the graduate-students in these depart­ ments, the argument being that, if there is anything to the notion that specializing on the materials of a given field can have a transfer effect, the physics graduate-students should read all of the passages at a faster rate than the physics professors and the history graduate-students should read all of the passages at a slower rate than the history professors, inasmuch as the professors have had the longer experience. The question of training effects, however, is closely 78 bound up with, the concept of types of reading. The concept, as previously stated, is that technical material induces a slow, careful rate and that historical writing promotes a rapid rate, ho clearcut evidence to support this concept of types of reading was found in the present study. The results thro?/ into question whether the physics subjects uniformly practice a slov; rate of reading on the materials of their field and whether the history subjects uniformly practice a rapid rate on the materials of their field. How can there be a special practice effect under these conditions? lem becomes almost non-existant. otherwise than negative. tion. The prob­ The results can hardly be The evidence bears out this conten­ We did not find that the physics subjects read all of the passages at a slo?/er rate than the other subject groups* Actually, they read the physics passage at a faster rate than any other group read any passage. They also read the history and education passages at slower average rates than any other group read any passage, but the explanation previously given is that they had difficulty comprehending these materials. Conversely, we did not find that the history subjects read all of the passages faster than the other groups. Actually, as pointed out before, the physics subjects read the physics passage at a slightly faster rate than the history subjects read the history passage. Comparing the performances of the professors and graduate-students likev/ise failed to reveal a training effect. The physics professors did not read at a 79 slower rate than the physics graduate-students and the his­ tory professors did not read at a faster rate than the his­ tory graduate-students. The results do show a tendency for the history subjects to read slightly more proficiently than the other groups. Table XX presents some of the evidence in the form of t values. Two of the t values are significant, namely, those comparing the history and physics subjects for rate of read­ ing and fixation frequency on the education passage. difference in each instance favors the history group. The Thus, there is some evidence to show that the history subjects read an unfamiliar passage at a faster rate than the physics subjects read the same unfamiliar passage. It may be pos­ sible that the difference is related to a difference in train­ ing. The only trouble with this argument is that no signifi­ cant differences appeared when the physics and education sub­ jects were compared on an unfamiliar passage and when the history and education subjects were compared on the unfamiliar passage, that is, the physics subjects did not read the his­ tory passage at a significantly slower rate than the education subjects, and the history subjects did not read the physics passage at a significantly faster rate than the education sub­ jects . The analysis of variance data presented earlier in Tables IX and XIV offer one more source of hope for finding a train­ ing effect. It will be noted that in each of these two tables TABLE XX SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR RATE OF READING AND FIXATION FREQUENCY BETWEEN PHYSICS SUBJECTS READING UNFAMILIAR MATERIAL AND EDUCATION AND HISTORY SUBJECTS READING UNFAMILIAR MATERIAL Degrees t 1 per­ cent 5 per­ cent Ox Comparison Education subjects vs. physics subjects reading history..... History subjects vs. physics subjects reading education.... Education subjects vs. history subjects reading physics..... Education subjects vs. physics subjects reading history..... History subjects vs. physics subjects reading education.... Education subjects vs. history subjects reading physics..... Measure Freedom Rate 62 ; .91 2.66 2.00 Rate 62 2.52 2.66 2.00 Rate 62 .02 2.66 2.00 Fixations 62 .85 2.66 2.00 Fixations 62 3.06 2.66 2.00 Fixations 62 1.53 2.66 2.00 co o 81 a significant P was derived for the total departmental per­ formances. In order to study the details of the difference, t tests were applied, fable XXI presents the results, fable XXI establishes the fact that the physics subjects did not make significantly more fixations than the education subjects, but it does reveal that the history subjects made signifi­ cantly fewer fixations and refixations than the other two departments, fhus, while technical material may not make for slow readers, history material may tend to produce rapid readers, fhe latter suggestion is based on the finding that the history subjects read an unfamiliar passage at a signifi­ cantly faster rate than the physics subjects and 011 the fur­ ther finding that, as a department, the history subjects made significantly fewer fixations and refixation3 than both the education and physics groups. difficult to reach, Definite conclusions are fhere were no significant differences between the ranks in the history department, fhe possibil­ ity remains that the history subjects were a select group of individuals who were rapid readers before they entered the history field. Summary, fhis section of the results may be summarized as follows: (1) No clear-cut evidence has been found that training in a special field affects reading performance in other areas, fhe following specific findings support this statement. (a) fhe physics subjects did not read all of the TABLE XXI SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES FOR FIXATION 'FREQUENCY AND REFIXATION FREQUENCY BETWEEN TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCES Comparison Education subjects vs. physics subj ect s ...... Education subjects vs. history subjects...... Physics subjects vs. history subjects...... Education subjects vs. physics subjects...... Education subjects vs. history subjects...... Physics subjects vs. history subjects...... Measure Degrees of Freedom t 1 per­ cent 5 per­ cent Fixations 190 .88 2.60 1.97 Fixations 190 3.33 2.60 1.97 Fixations 190 2.60 1.97 Refixations 190 2.60 1.97 Refixations 190 2.60 1.97 Refixations 190 2.60 1.97 .80 83 passages slower than the other subject groups. (b) The history subjects did not read all of the passages faster than the other subject groups. (c) The physics graduate-students did not read faster than the physics professors. (d) The history graduate-students did not read, slower than the history professors. (e) The physics subjects did not read an unfamil­ iar passage significantly slower than the education sub jects re ad the same unfami11ar pas sage. (f) The history subjects did not read an unfamil­ iar passage significantly faster than the education subjects read the same unfamiliar passage. (2) There is a suggestion, by no means conclusive, that training in the field of history may tend to make for rapid readers. This statement seems to be supported by these specific findings: (a) The history subjects did read an unfamiliar ■ passage significantly faster than the physics subjects read the same unfamiliar passage. (b) The history subjects, as a department, made significantly fewer fixations and refixations than the other two departmental groups. Individual Differences in Reading Performances The presentation of the results dealing with the three 84- secondary questions remains. The first of these questions concerns the individual differences in eye-movement perfor­ mance which exist among the present group of subjects. The results relating to this problem will be presented separately for the three measures of greatest interest: rate of read­ ing, fixation frequency, and regression frequency. Individual Differences in Rato of Reading. Figures 2, 3, and 4 3how the distributions for rate in ems per minute separately for each group and each passage. The mean of each distribution is Indicated by the broken line which runs through the figure, while one standard deviation above and below the mean is marked off by the finely dotted lines which appear on either side of the mean. Figure 2 presents the frequency distributions for rate of reading for the education subjects. Wide individual dif­ ferences exist among both the professors and graduate-students on all passages. On the education passage, for example, there was one professor who read almost three times as rapidly as the slowest reader in the group. It is obvious at a glance that the intra-passage individual variation is enormously greater than the group variation from passage to passage. For the education professors, the difference between the low­ est and highest mean scores was only 61 ems per minute" (23 words per minute). This may be compared with a difference of 780 ems per minute (300 words per minute) between the fastest and slowest individual rate scores for these professors on 85 EDUCATION PROFESSORS EDUCATION GRADUATE STUDENTS 6 4 - NUMBER OF CASES 8 - 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 EMS PER MINUTE EMS PER MINUTE EDUCATION PASSAGE EDUCATION PASSAGE 6 - 4 - 2 - NUMBER OF CASES 8 - 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 EMS PER MINUTE PHYSICS EMS PER MINUTE RASSAGE PHYSICS PASSAGE 1— 1— I— 1— T M OF CASES cn _ u Wj 6 < o NUMBER Ui 6 < OF o <£ 4 NUMBER UJ CD 2 0 .5 .4 .3 FIXATIONS PER EM .2 .1 0 FIXATIONS PER EM HISTORY PASSAGE HISTORY RASSAGE FIGURE 10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR FIXATIONS FOR HISTORY SUBJECTS PER EM was .216 fixations per am (6.2 fixations par line). There are no important differences in the intra-passage individual variation for the professors from passage to passage. The graduate-students pretty much follow suit in this case. The differences between the standard deviations from passage to passage or from professors to graduate-students on the same passage are negligible. ITo important departmental differences have emerged from this analysis of the fixation frequency distributions. Figures 5, 6, and 7 may be reexamined with reference to the intra-passage individual variation which was found for fixation frequency. A comparison of the performances of the two education professors, as illustrated on Figure 5, reveals that Case 2, the fast reader, made 49 fixations on nine lines, while Case 16, the slow reader, made 53 fixations on four lines. An analysis of the eye-movement records for the two education graduate-students shows a similar difference for this measure. A count of the fixations made by the two physics professors on the records shown on Figure 6 discloses that Case 15, the rapid performer, made 44 fixations on nine lines, while Case 5, the slow performer, made 55 fixations on four lines. The records for the two physics graduate- students divulge equally striking differences. A comparison of the two history professors* eye-movement records, as il­ lustrated on Figure 7, show that Case 13, the rapid reader, made 28 fixations on seven lines, while Case 10, the slow 101 performer, made 46 fixations on five linos. The eye-move­ ment records for the two history graduate-students reveal substantially the same difference. Individual Differences in Regression Frequency. Fig­ ures 11, 12, and ID present the distributions for regressions per era separately for each group of subjects on each passage. The mean and the standard deviation of each distribution are indicated in the same manner as before. Figure 11 presents the regression-frequency distribu­ tions for the education subjects. As in the case of rate and fixation frequency,-wide individual differences exist among both the professors and graduate-students. Whereas one edu­ cation professor made no regressions on the education passage, another professor in the group averaged 3.5 regressions per line on the same passage. The difference between the lowest and highest mean regression scores made by the professors was .001 regressions per em (.02 regressions per line). The intra-passage individual variation among the education pro­ fessors on all passages eclipses the inter-passage group variation. The same points can be made regarding the distri­ butions for the education graduate-students. The largest standard deviation was found on the education passage for the professors and on the physics passage for the graduate-stud­ ents, but otherwise there is very little to choose between the ranks. Figure 12 presents the regression scores for the physics 102 PROFESSORS EDUCATION GRADUATE STUDENTS NUMBER OF CASES EDUCATION .12 .10 .08 .06 .04 .02 .00 .10 EDUCATION PASSAGE .08 ,06 REGRESSIONS PER EM .04 .02 .00 EDUCATION PASSAGE NUMBER OF CASES REGRESSIONS PER EM .12 .10 .08 .06 REGRESSIONS PER EM .04 .02 .10 .00 .08 .06 REGRESSIONS PER EM PHYSICS PASSAGE .04 .02 .00 PHYSICS PASSAGE 1--1--1--r 8 - CASES < /> llJ M 2 □ .10 .08 .06 .02 0 .00 EDUCATION PASSAGE .10 .08 .06 REGRESSIONS PER EM .04 .02 .00 EDUCATION PASSAGE NUMBER OF CASES REGRESSIONS PER EM .04 .10 .08 .06 REGRESSIONS PER EM .04 .02 .10 .00 .08 .06 REGRESSIONS PER EM PHYSICS PASSAGE .04 .02 .00 PHYSICS PASSAGE NUMBER OF CASES 8 6 4 2 0 .10 .08 .06 REGRESSIONS PER EM .04 .02 .10 .00 HISTORY PASSAGE .08 .06 REGRESSIONS PER EM .04 j02 .00 HISTORY PASSAGE FIGURE 13 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR REGRESSIONS PER EM FOR HISTORY SUBJECTS 106 graduate-students is much larger than the inter-passage group variation. The standard deviations of the regression-fre­ quency scores for the history subjects were generally larger than for either the education or physics subjects and highly uniform in size. The physics subjects tended to be the least variable on this measure, except for the performance of the physics graduate-students on the education passage. To take one final look at Figures 5, 6, and 7, this time with reference to the intra-passage individual varia­ tion which was found for regression-frequency. The records for the two education professors on Figure 5 divulge that Case 2, the rapid reader, made no regressions on ten lines, while Case 16, the slow reader, made nine regressions on only four lines. The records for the two education graduate- students may be reforred to as another example of the indi­ vidual differences in regression-frequency which were found among the education subjects. The records for the physics subjects exhibited on Figure 6 reveal that the rapid reader of the professor pair, Case 15, made six regressions on nine lines, while Case 5, the slow reader, made nine regressions on four lines. The records for the two physics graduate- students provide another example of the same sort of indivual variation. An inspection of- the records for the history subjects displayed on Figure 7 shows that Case 13, the rapid reader of the professor pair made only one regression on seven lines, while Case 10, the slow reader, made seven re- gresalons on five lines, The performances of the two liistor graduate-students differ in like fashion, in that the fast reader made fewer regressions on eight lines than the slow reader made on four. Summary. The specific findings on individual differ­ ences may be summarised as follows: (].') ’Vide individual variation existed within each sub­ ject group on all passages, as measured by rate, fixation frequency, and regression frequency. (2) The intra-passage individual variation on all pas­ sages for each group was vastly greater than the inter-pas­ sage group variation. (o) No consistent differences were found in the amount of intra-passage individual variation from passage to pas-sage-. (4) No consistent differences emerged in the amount of intra-passage variation between the ranks. (5) No important departmental differences were found with regard to the extent of intra-passage variability. Studies of Omnivorous Readers V/e come now to the second of the ancillary questions. As reported before, the literature contains a number of ac­ counts of individuals who were credited with being able to read in "chunks1*, "sections", or "gulps". In no case were the claims supported by eye-movement evidence. The subjects of the present study include at least one individual for v/hora similar claims have been made. It was felt, therefore, that a study of the eye-movement records of the swiftest readers in the group might offer an opportunity to evaluate the claims which frequently are made that there are individuals who can read whole lines or even paragraphs in a single glance or fixation of the eyes. An analysis of all the records reveals that few. subjects read faster than 1500 eras per minute (500 words per minute). This rate was arbitrarily set tip as the standard for select­ ing the swiftest readers in the group. Actually, only five subjects were found to have read this fast. Case 13 of the history professors read the history passage at 1500 ©ms per minute (575 words per minute), the education passage at 1380 ems per minute (530 words per minute), and the physics pas­ sage at 1550 ems per minute (520 words per minute); Case 16 of the education graduate-students read the physics passage at 1338 ems per minute (512 words per minute); Case 8 of the physics graduate-students read the physics passage at 1481 ems per minute (568 words per minute); Case 3 of the physics graduate-students read the physics passage at 1338 ems per minute (512 words per minute); and Case 11 of the education professors read the physics passage at 1554 ems per minute (596 words per minute). This is the entire list of subjects who read faster than 500 words per minute. Incidentally, the rapid readers for whom illustrative eye-movement records 109 were sliown on Pleuras 5, 6, and 7.include a few of the indi­ viduals listed here. These are Case 16 of the education graduate-students represented on Figure 5, Case 8 of the physics graduate-students represented on Figure 6, and Case 13 of the history professors represented on Figure 7. Of the five cases listed, only one subject, Case 13 of the history professors, maintained a speed of 500 words per minute or better on all passages. Case 13 happens to be the individual who has the reputation on the University of Michi­ gan campus of being able to read a line or' a paragraph at a glance. One will search the record shown for this case on Figure 7 in vain for evidence of single eye-fixations per line or paragraph. The same may be said for the records of Case 16 of the education graduate-students on Figure 5 and of Case 8 of the physics graduate-students on Figure 6. One might object, however, that the passages used in the present study were too difficult to read in anything but the normal . manner, and also, that the comprehension requirement operated to put the damper on speed. In view of these objections, Case 13 was invited for further tests before the Opthalm-O-Graph. These additional tests involved material ranging in difficulty from the pri­ mary to the college level. Formal comprehension check tests were omitted and the subject was merely told to read the ma­ terial as he normally would. One may search these records also without' avail for single fixations per line or paragraph. 110 ;:f. The fastest rate achieved on the supplementary tests did not exceed 600 words per minute. This is an exceptionally fast reading speed, but it is far from what we were searching for. It seems clear that this subject, while a much faster reader than most of his colleagues, nevertheless reads in the con­ ventional manner, in that he makes several fixations per line as well as occasional regressions. Actually, the subject who turned in the fastest single : performance on the regular passages was not Case 13 of the history professors at all, but Case 11 of the education profeasors, who read the physics passage at 596 words per minute and made 5.8 fixations per line. An interesting sidelight can be offered b y way of an ac­ count of the reading, habits of another unusual reader, ColumI bia University’s distinguished educational psychologist, Pro•-V feasor Edward L. Thorndike. Professor Thorndike has been credited by Time magazine with having read the Cyclopedia of Education as bedtime reading. Professor Walter F. Dearborn, of Harvard University, has recently obtained some eye-move1 ment records of Professor Thorndike’s reading by means of the ,1 electrical-potential technique. Dr. Dearborn has given the y present writer permission to use the section of Professor I n Thorndike's electro-oculogram'- shown on Figure 14. The read- IIt ing material in this case was a selection from Adam Smith' v 1; Wealth of Nations. ■ ■— ■- » - A comprehension check was required. ................... A “1 Term used to denote eye-movement records obtained by the electrical-potential technique. 41477 i n RETURN SWEEPS FORWARD S H IF T S > REGRESSIONS F IX A T IO N FIGURE SECTION 14 OF AN ELECTRO-OCULOGRAM OF A SKILLED READER rough estimate of Professor Thorndike’s performance, as il­ lustrated on Figure 14, indicates that he was reading at about 560 words per minute and making an average of. six fix­ ations per line. With Professor Thorndike’s record to sup­ plement the eye-movement records obtained from the subjects of this investigation, it seems clear that even the most omnivorous of readers do not read with the lightning rates commonly reported, especially when they are asked to make good their performance on a comprehension check test. Summary. The following points summarize this section of the results: (1) Among the subjects used in this investigation, no evidence was found to support the contention that there are individuals who are able to read in single fixations per line or paragraph. (2) Only five subjects were found who read as rapidly as 500 words per minute. (5) Only one subject read all three passages at rates as high as 500 words per minute. (4) The fastest single performance which was achieved on any passage was 596 words per minute. 'The Problem of Rhythm Readlng And so we come to the last of the secondary questions. As stated previously, several authorities, notably Dearborn (12) and Robinson (42), have declared that good readers char­ 113 acteristically read with a rhythmical pattern of eye-movements which remains more or less constant from line to line. Partly as a result, a number of gadgets and devices have been introduced on the market which, seek to improve reading by training the poor reader in what is supposed to be the pat­ tern of the eye-movements of the skillful reader. Actually, the evidence for the whole idea of rhythm reading is very limited. For one thing, so few studies have been made of the eye-movements of good readers. Since the subjects of the present study may be classed as good readers, it was felt that the eye-movements of a few of the most rapid readers in the group might be profitably studied with reference to the problem of rhythm reading. The records for the good readers represented on Figures 5, 6, and 7 m a y b e used as test cases. The records for the slow readers of each pair may be employed for comparative purposes, inasmuch as slow readers are sup­ posed to read in a less rhythmical fashion than fast readers. Vie can look first at Figure 5, which presents the sample records for the education department. The record for Case 2, the rapid reader of the two professors, is rhythmical in the way that Dearborn and Robinson have described. This record shows little variation in fixation frequency from line to line. Lines 1, 2, 3, and 9 are remarkably similar in detail. The same may be said for lines 6 and 7. whole is highly regular. The record as a There are no regressions, and the four refixations on the record are a part of the repetition 114 of the pattern of lines 1, 2, 5, and. 9. The record for Case 16, the fast reader of the two education graduate-students, is not as regular in pattern as the record for Case 2. Hore variation in fixation frequency from line to line is shown, and occasional regressions were made. However, even on the record for Case 16, some repetition of pattern is evident. Lines 5, 8, and 9 of this record, for example, are remark­ ably alike in detail. ITo such repetition of pattern appears on the record for the slow reader of each pair. The record for the slow-reading professor is especially variable. The record for this individual on Figure 5 shows twenty fixations on the first line and only seven on the second line. A study of the two physics professors’ eye-movement records, as illustrated on Figure 6, shows that Case 15., the fast reader, read rhythmically on some lines and arhythmically on other lines. For example, lines 1, 5, and 8 were read in four evenly spaced fixations, whereas the reading of lines 2, 3, and 4 was marked by irregular eye-movements. However, the record of Case 15 is decidedly more uniform than that of Case 5, the slow reader. A glance at the W o gradu­ ate-students’ eye-movement records reveals that Case 8, the \ rapid reader, read the various lines with fairly regular oye-movements. On the other hand, the eye-movement record of Case 11, the slow reader is highly irregular. On Figure V, the eye-movement record for Case 13, the fast-reading history professor, does not reveal much evidence m I.V'.' of rhythmical reading. There is goino indication in the fir at three or four lines of this record that Case 15 nay inave road one line in the usual forward direction and the21 road the next line in a backward direction, akipping the return swoop entirely. i..:: Inspection of tho two history graduate-skudontsr Qvg-novenent records shown d 011 Figure 7 shows that tho- record for Case 10, the rapid reader, while not very rhythmical at the start, be cane nucli more regular near the end. Linos 0 and 7, for example, are very nuch alike in pattern. The record for Case 5, t'ne slow-reading history graduate-studont, reveals 210 repetition in pattern, nor does the record for Case 10, the slow-re ading history professor. One habit which did emerge was the proclivity of some individuals to make re firrations on almost every lino of every passage. Other individuals rarely if ever made re fixations. The two records shown on Figure 15 illustrate this difference. The record for Case 12, the physics professor, contains a re­ fixation on every line. The record professor, contains no re fixations. for Case 5, the education Incidentally, Case 15 of /. the physics professors was a fairly rapid reader. It is in­ terestin'- to observe the repetition of detail his record prossilts • lines 2, 5, and 4 are very much alike in pattern, lie relativelv lonr oause whic 1 occurs at tho end of every line is in nature of an individual idiosyncrasy. v u It nav bo t* profitable sometime to reexamine all of tho records collected in this study for other examples of individual habit3 of that V: ■ sort. 116 PHYSICS PROFESSOR EDUCATION PROFESSOR CASE 5 5 LINES C A S E 12 6 LINES FIGURE 15 SAMPLE E Y E -M O V E M E N T RECORDS ILLUSTRATING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE FREQUENCY OF REFIXATIONS 117 Summary. The following points summarise this section of tho resultsi (1) A comparison of the records showed that the fast readers tended to read in a more rhythmical fashion than the slow readers. (2) The repetition of detail from line to line was rather striking in the case of a few of the records for the good readers. (3) In a few other instances, evidence was found of arhytlmdcal reading on the part of the good readers. (4) One habit which emerged froin the records as a whole was a tendency on the part of some readers to make refixa­ tions on almost every line of every passage. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSIOIT OF THE liESULTS As mentioned before, this chapter has been reserved for an evaluation of the general results as-wall as for a discus­ sion of their implications and applications. To begin with, it may be said that familiarity has emerged as a factor in reading performance. Except for the failure of the education and history graduate-students to conform to the general pat­ tern, all of the results presented in the first section of the specific findings add up to that end. Why significant differences were obtained only for the physics subjects is a forensic question.. It is possible that the physics subjects were relatively more specialized than the other groups. Sup­ port is lent this hypothesis by the relationship which was found for the physics subjects between their rate scores on the various passages and their scores on the comprehension check tests. A corallary idea is that the education and history subjects may have been relatively less specialized. It Is true that within the School of Education there are many subject-matter specialists. Some specialize in science, some In the social studies, and so forth. This condition may ac­ count in part for the failure of the education subjects to 118 119 read, the passage from their own field, significantly more ef­ ficiently than the passages from the other two fields. Familiarity also seemed to he less of a factor with the graduate-students than it was with the professors, if we ex­ clude the performance of tho physics graduate-students. Per­ haps the professors were relatively more familiar with the passages from their own special field than were the graduatestudents, and hence their performance merely reflects their longer training and experience in the field. The obvious application of these observations is that familiar materials be used to promote rapid reading and that the art of slow, careful reading be taught by means of unfamiliar material. These suggestions are contrary to the plan proposed by Me Caul (33). Hie evidence for types of reading was not convincing. The physics passage was not read slowly by everyone, nor was the history passage read rapidly by all the subjects. All passages were read both rapidly and slowly depending on the individual reader. Thus, encouraging students to skim over history material is questionable advice, just as it is un­ necessary to tell everyone to read science material at a snail’s pace. These findings dealing with types of reading were some­ what at odds with the introspective testimony. Virtually every physics professor stated that the usual content in physics requires a slow, careful reading because the material Ia written in a very compact stylo, with important points and formulas brought up in almost every phrase. It is pos­ sible that the physics passage used in the present study was not entirely typical of the material one usually encounters in this field. Different results may have been obtained if the physics passage had contained formulas. However, Hebert (40, 41) has shown in two Investigations (1) that the Inclu­ sion of numbers In a reading selection does not alter the normal reading pattern, providing the numbers are familiar, and (2) that individuals highly trained In a field such as physics or chemistry will read passages containing formulas from these fields with fewer fixations than individuals who are less specialized. factor. Familiarity seems to be the deciding A slow rate will not help if the individual is un­ familiar with the language of mathematics or science. The history subjects,-as a department, tended to read more rapid­ ly than the subjects of the other departments. This again may not be so much the materials per se, as It is a matter of practice. It is possible that historians are called upon to read more extensively than specialists in many other depart­ ments, and there is nothing that promotes fluency more than extensive reading of a wide variety of materials. The evidence for the idea that training in a given field affects the individual’s reading performance in other fields, was also without conviction. Extremely fast, as well as very slow, readers were found in all departments. The results 121 seem to indicate that the speed with which a person reads is an individual matter. Certainly, just as slo\7 readers were found amone the history and education subjects as among the physics subjects, vflien training in a technical field is given as the reason for a slow rate of reading, the individual may be stating not so much the cause of his slow reading as finding an excuse for it. If there is one thing that this study has shown, it is that wide individual differences in reading skill existed among the subjects of all departments. Past and slow readers were found in every department, and the over-lapping of the' distributions from passage to passage was enormous. No evidence was found for the idea that there are indi­ viduals who can read in single fixations per line or para­ graph. Reports of such cases can be regarded with skepticism, unless the claims are supported by eye-movement evidence. Yi/hile it is true that some individuals go through a book so rapidly that they never stop turning pages, it can also be said that they are not really reading, but rather are engag­ ing in a masterful form of skimming. In such cases, unless the material is extremely familiar, the individual cannot stand much of a test on the material. The comprehension re­ quirement in the present experiment was very modest, but it was enough to abolish the idea that there might have been in­ dividuals in the group who-could give a passage one quick glance and absorb tho material. 122 If anything, the subjects used in this study did not read as skillfully as might be supposed, The average rate for the three groups of professors on all passages was 303 words per minute and 8.56 fixations per line. Yet statements are frequently made in the literature that good readers aver­ age only three or four fixations per line. Such statements are careless generalizations of the facts. Ihe notion that good readers require only three or four fixations to navi­ gate a line steins from Buswell*s early study (8). But, as Stroud (49) has pointed out, Buswell used a very short line and very easy material. Mien Stroud converted Buswell1s data into number of fixations per 24- and.28 pica lines, he found that six or seven fixations per line would have been the expected performance, and this on the part of Buswe 11fs best readers on second grade material. Since it is known that the number of fixations increases with the difficulty of the material, Stroud concludes that eight or ten fixations per line more nearly approaches the number of fixations the average mature reader makes. The results of the present study support Stroud1s contention. And who would think of design­ ing a pacing device involving eight or ten fixations per line ? With regard to the problem of rhythm reading, some evi­ dence was found to support the idea that the very best of readers do occasionally adopt a set pattern of eye-movements which is repeated at least on some of the lines. These are the ,fshort-lived motor h a b i t s o f which Dearborn speaks. " “ r ~ ■ 1 rT - * ■ - - - - - J J - I I . . - r J-- - ^Dearborn, on. oit., p. 29. 123 .Tliare also seem to be times when, fast readers resort to a pattern of eye-movements which can only be termed arhythmical. In this connection it may be appropriate, to present an analysis which Dearborn has made of the eye-movement habits of Dr. Robert B. Blake, Professor of History at Harvard and formerly Director of the Harvard Library. Dr. Blake is sup­ posed to be able to read with blazing speed. Here follows the analysis which was made of Dr. Blake's eye-movement habits and which tho writer is quoting with Dearborn’s permission: The eye-movement record of Professor Blake is characterised by a small number of fixations per line, (between four or five on the average), but a large number of regressions— in fact so frequent are the regressions that it is usually difficult to tell what Is a return saccadic sweep and what is a regressive movement. .. The record suggests that Professor Blake follows the line of print closely for several lines then skips about through several more and then reads closely again. Thus, the record for short stretches follows the usual reading pat­ tern, which portion is followed by haphazard patterns. There is some indication In the record that Professor Blake may read one line in the usual forward direction and the next in a backward direction thus weaving down the page. In regard to the comprehension checks: a comprehension check was taken every twenty-five pages. Since Professor Blake read over seventy-five pages in the half-hour trial, three of these internal checks were taken. These internal checks measure primarily the comprehension of the details of what has just been read. On the first check the score was 15 right out of 22; the second, 6 right out of 20; and the third, 14 right out of 20— all of which scores are below those made by the other subjects of this experiment. The final comprehension check primarily measures the comprehension of the general thought of what has been read. Professor Blake’s score on this final test was 15 right out of 17 attempted. It may be concluded that Professor Blake’s method of read­ ing reduces his comprehension of details, but does not impair his comprehension of the gist of the subject matter read. The record shows definitely that the reading was not done by glanc- ing at the page, but it is rather the result of a highly skillful skimming procedure balanced by more ordinary read­ ing when necessary. The suggestion that Professor Blake may read one line in a forward direction and the next in a backward direction is reminiscent of the eye-movement records for the two pro­ fessors shown on Figures 6 and 7. On Figure 6, the eye-move­ ment record for Case 15 of the physics professors gives some signs that this individual may have been reading in the man­ ner ascribed to Dr. Blake. One may note in the third, fourth, and fifth lines of this record how the eyes seem to have been weaving back and forth across the lines rather than making a definite return sweep. On Figure 7, the eye-movement record of Case 15 of the history professors shows the same kind of performance in the second, third, and fourth lines. CHAPTER VII SUT.D.IARY A1JD C0ITCLTJSI01TS 1. Review of the Conditions of the Study This investigation has involved a study of the eyemovements in reading; of three croups of University of I.Iichican professors representinc the fields of education, physics, and history. The reading materials were selected from tho same three fields, and each subject read the material from his own field as well as the materials from the other two fields. The professors all had their doctorates and an academic rank of assistant professor or higher. A group of graduate-stud­ ents from each of the three fields was run through the same experiment. All of the graduate-students were working for their doctorates and for the most part were teaching fellows. The graduate-students were included for comparative and con­ trol purposes. Three pairs of reading selections were used in the study. These passages were equated for difficulty by the Pleach and Lorge formulas. One passage of each pair waa used, as a prac­ tice selection and the other as tho test selection. All the passages were 200 words in length, printed on two cards of 100 words each. The type-aiso and. line-length were constant 125 126 and conformed, to optimum conditions. The Opthahn-O-Graph was used to record each subject's eye-movements during the reading of the second 100 words of the test passage. Each test selection was preceded by a reading of the practice passage before the eye-movement cam­ era. After each practice and test passage was read, a com­ prehension check test was given, consisting of five Yes-IIo questions. The questions were based on the main ideas in each selection. 2. Summary of the Results Four measures were used to analyze the eye-movement records for each subject: (1) rate of reading in ems per minute, (2) number of fixations per era, (5) number of regres­ sions per em, (4) number of refixations per line. In addi­ tion, a comprehension score was computed in terms of percent. The problems studied dealt with the effect of familiarity of material on reading performance, types of reading as a fac­ tor in reading performance, the effect of training in a special field on reading performance, individual difference among the subjects, omnivorous readers, and rhythm reading. The results may be summarized as follows: (1) All of the professor groups, plus the physics gradu­ ate-students, read the passage from their own special field most efficiently. However, statistically reliable differ­ ences were found only In the case of the physics subjects 127 v/lio road the physics pas sac© significantly faster than they read the education or history passages, and who made significantly fewer fixations per ©in in reading the physics passage than they did in reading the other two passages. (2) Tho science material ‘used in the present study did not induce a special type of reading. was not read slowly Toy all groups. The physics passage Furthermore, the eye- movement records of the education subjects show that these individuals read the physics and history passages in about the same way, and the eye-movement records of the history subjects reveal that this group did not read the physics and education passages with significantly different eyemovement s . (3) The history material used in this investigation did not elicit a special typo of reading. was not read rapidly by all groups. The history passage Also, the eye-movement records of the physics subjects show that these subjects did not road the history and education passages in a significantly different manner. (4) The training the physics subjects have had in tech­ nical areas evidently has not served to slow down their read­ ing in other fields. The eye-movements the physics subjects and the education subjects made on an unfamiliar selection, the history passage, were not significantly different. (5) Some evidence was found which seems to indicate that the training of the history subjects may have operated to 128 speed up reading. Although the history subjects did not read an unfamiliar passage, the physics passage, signifi­ cantly faster than the education subjects road the same un­ familiar passage, the history subjects did read the educa­ tion passage significantly faster than the physics subjects read this same passage. Furthermore, the history subjects as a whole made significantly fewer fixations and refixations than the other two groups. (6) The intra-passage individual variations wore vastljr greater than the inter-passage group variations, and tended to over-shadow any questions of types of reading and special training. (7) Ho readers were’ found who made single fixations per line or paragraph. The average reading performance was about 300 words per minute and eight or nine fixations per line. The fastest individual performance on any paragraph was 596 words per minute, which does not approach the performance attributed to some individuals. (8) Some evidence was found that fast readers tend to repeat the pattern of their eye-movements from lino to line. Some evidence was also found that fast readers are skillful in the art of skimming, which results in arhythmical eyemovements. Rofixations tended to be made habitually by some individuals. (9) The reading of the graduate-students was found to be comparable to that of the professors. In only one instance was a significant difference found between the reading of the 129 two ranlcs and that favored the history graduate-students over the history professors in the number of refixations made. 3. Gonelusions of the Investigation From the specific findings of this study, the following conclusions may be drawn: (1) Familiarity of material may be regarded as a factor in reading performance. (2) Tho idea that different types of material automatic­ ally elicit different typos of reading is of doubtful valid­ ity. (5) Training in a special academic field exerts little influence on reading habits, except as the extensive reading which history requires may serve to promote a rapid rate. (4) The individual differences which normally exist among a population like that used in this study over-shadow all of the other sources of variation studied. (5) Cases of individuals who are supposed to be able to road in "gulps”, "chunks", or "sections" may be put down as masterful skimmers. (6) Swift readers tend to read in a rhythmical fashion, except when they resort to skimming, and then their eye-move­ ments become distinctly arhythmical. ' All of these conclusions-, of course, are subject to the conditions of the study. APPENDICES APPEUDIX A DATA FOR EACH GROUP Subjects A g e -. 'Fixations per Em Rate in Ems per Minute Regressions oer Eci. Edu­ EduEdu­ cation Physics History cation Physics History 2 b 42 684 47 1266 57 756 53 588 56 586 46 954 36 884 48 816 42 804 45 654 34 1218 53 774 55 576 36 756 34 954 39 486 546 936 774 510 636 924 888 684 750 672 1554 612 498 828 954 408 804 1236 834 540 684 840 654 834 720 630 792 750 516 bbc 822 468 .277 .189 .285 .270 .312 .262 .273 .303 .343 .290 .228 -.316 .344 .235 .297 .497 020 . .231 .305 .328 .308 .262 .297 .312 .390 .324 orn .389 .378 .235 .282 .397 .196 .278 .312 ,285 -295 .385 .290 .361 .315 .333 .319 .382 oy1/ 7 » 4J/+ ,0Q ,11 .28 Edu­ PJiysl.cs History cation Physics ■30 A0V* ,11 .30 .20 .30 ,40 ,20 .11 .20 .44 33 75 .20 .25 .40 .80 ,50 ,30 1.30 .20 .90 .70 .22 .44 .22 1.30 1.10 .66 .66 1.00 .57 .37 .00 60 100 60 40 80 80 80 60 40 100 100 60 60 ISO 60 100 30 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 80 20 100 80 40 80 80 T A B U SCIII BASIC BATA FOR EDUCATION GRADUATE STUDENTS Subjects Age 1 ...... 2 ..... 3. ..... 4. ..... 5..... 6. 7 ..... 8 ..... 9..... 10 . B•«p« 1 1 ..... 1 2 . __ 13• ..... 14..... 15..... 16..... 37 32 34 27 29 32 30 34 28 29 30 31 38 36 39 32 Rate in Ems pei- Minute Fixations per Em Regressions per Em Refjxatic ~er Lin Percent Cor^rehenslon Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ cation Physics History cation Physics History cation Physics History cation Physics History cation 457 471 480 .401 •385 •374 .054 .027 .034 .55 '60 .50 747 368 679 735 .358 .010 .329 .027 . 020 .66 .77 .40 40 928 1185 751 .270 .246 .204 .000 ,017 .11 ,023 00 .30 80 972 972 960 .324 .312 .298 .030 .027 ,031 *88 .78 1.00 80 581 558 628 .370 .368 .050 .393 .046 .048 -00 1.00 1.00 80 824 499 .316 659 ,462 .284 .027 ..084 .006 .77 , 6 6 .90 100 518 553 .421 559 .467 •427 .058 .069 .052 «•nn tt .70 •55 40 672 560 637 •309 .432 .015 -359 .069 .038 .44 ,50 •44 80 665 622 723 .378 .363 .372 .050 .058 .22 .059 .11 .30 100 691 1036 .247 .228 743 .292 .031 .019 .22 .049 .30 80 .33 708 930 630 .305 .278 .251 .042 .019 .013 .11 .00 .40 100 648 545 684 .378 •389 .361 .062 .066 .073 .66 .44 .80 SO 1054 1196 1016 .212 .219 .012 .019 -233 .007 .22 .11 .00 100 1020 1188 942 .270 .24.6 .019 ,204 .027 .000 .66 .78 .30 60 1071 1110 808 .255 .247 -316 .012 .019 .028 .22 .80 60 • 1173 1338 .216 1133 ,219 .204 .007 .012 .014 .22 .11 .20 60 • . ' Physics Histcn 100 100 100 80 80 60 100 80 80 100 100 80 80 80 60 80 80 80 60 80 60 80 80 80 60 60 60 40 60 60 80 t-1 03 03 BASIC DATA FOR PHYSICS PROFESSORS Subjects Age 2. 3.' 4. 5. 6• * 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1516. 61 46 35 66 52 38 27 34 40 68 40 63 68 64 46 37 Rate In Ems per Minute Fixations per Em Regressions per Em Refixations per Line Percent Comprehension Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ cation Physics History cation Physic; History cation Physics History cation Physics Hist/Ory cation Physics History 696 342 541 .405 .446 .463 .077 .073 .094 .66 .57 20 100 80 576 522 624 3l2 .296 .342 .038 .026 .052 .22 .25 60 .33 40 20 570 642 480 .312 .339 .378 .038 .023 .031 .66 1.00 60 80 .90 60 690 888 ^•3 690 .266 .235 .027 .254 .010 .023 .11 .80 60 100 60 522 570 540 -388 .412 .392 .038 .058 .38 1.00 .039 1.00 40 80 80 630 648 .366 684 .340 .023 .343 .023 .024 .77 .70 60 .33 80 40 690 1002 786 .328 .260 .235 .020 .069 .019 .33 80 *d3 100 .50 40 690 .266 1194 654 .23-5 .042 .01$ .305 A1 .041 .40 80 100 60 756 1218 792 .204 .274 .264 .023 .003 .013 .50 .55 60 •33 80 20 76S 786 984 .269 .019 .267 .047 •235 .042. .1 2 ’ .11 .20 40 100 60 558 882 .362 1224 .212 .270 .081 .023 .22 .034 .60 60 40 80 606 756 666 •350 ,326 .027 .263 .000 .013 + i i 1.00 40 .90 100 60 1032 1266 .266 894 ,231 .031 .284 .027 .021 .00 .00 .50 60 100 40 •576 756 750 .328 .285 .306 .046 .007 .028 -77 .90 60 .77 100 60 •642 1296 1056 .303 .174 .234 .049 .031 .28 .00 .043 .62 60 100 80 ,■996 1218 960 .292 .290 .015 .254 .029 .031 .44 .66 60 100 .33 80 * TABLE }QCV BASIC DATA FOR PHYSICS GRADUATE STUDENTS Subjects Age Rate in Ems per Minute Fixations per Em Regressions per Em Refixntionf per Line Percent Comprehension Edu­ Education Physics History 32 2 « « • • • • 28 3* * *««• 24 A* * * « • « 35 3 ■* 22 /** t•*«**».* o «• 26 7 / « *** ** 31 756 876 987 598 687 696 870 1338 715 1045 984 26 21 1110 782 870 1196 1481 1122 27 30 25 31 471 474 606 409 718 26 586 28 25 690 529 1. ... 8• ...•* 9 . ..... 10 . 1 1 e ..o,. 1 2 . .«.«* 1 • ft . . a« 1A. » * o . • 15. . . . 4 . 16. . . . . . 888 586 1014 926 76 3 720 638 690 858 934 593 720 774 864 957 870 658 614 678 508 475 594 522 Edu­ Edu­ EduPhysics History cation Physics History cation Physics History ion .293 -385 .336 .042 .042 .062 .00 .20 40 // .235 -243 .038 .243 .027 .00 ,20 100 ,278 /,7 .260 .204 ,012 .039 .021 -55 100 Hi-' O .400 *409 -363 .050 .50 ^66 /;Vo V*.XO 4 .400 -394 ,77 ,88 60 •362 -326 .031 .273 .054 .4-4 60 o3 11 .208 .257 OO .189 .012 .019 80 A'A ,.Q°-0 •305 .170 .000 -255 .050 100 --V .77 OO .260 .254 .224 .015 .019 .00? ,22 -30 100 ✓/ .432 .100 .313 -344 ,019 .052 .88 .00 .80 60 * w,£, V IT .403 .6 28 -594 •340 .336 .436 .394 .366 -432 .262 .320 .370 .347 .535 -476 -333 .354 .382 ,082 .092 .166 .015 . 05-1 .031 .081 .046 .058 .008 .038 012 - .052 .050 .101 .017 .052 .22 .77 .55 .66 .77 1.13 .22 .44 .77 .66 .40 .80 .30 .50 .60 1.20 ,00 .06 40 100 100 80 80 60 Physics History 100 100 100 80 80 80 100 100 100 80 80 100 100 80 60 60 022 60 40 100 80 60 80 80 80 80 SO 100 80 60 80 H Ol TABE3 xxvi BASIC DATA FOP. HISTORY PROFESSORS ct t, p Subjects iAig Rate in Ems per Minute Regressions per Em Fixations per Esn Refixations per Line Percent Comprehension Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ Edu­ cation Physics History- cation Physics History cation Physics History cation Physics History cation Physics Histor; 1. «••«« 2 M • •*•« 3 • •• e •••«« 3 • ••«• • 6 • •••«• 7* a*aaa B? •«« •• 9* ••••• 52 50 32 36 49 33 54 39 54 LO............. 53 LI..... 35 .2 * .*<*** 41 3 ** *>•#«« 55 «• •«« 46 -p) a aa• aa 56 .6« ••••« 40 * 900 774 816 756 433 888 732 648 864 702 420 756 1380 984 420 912 918 768 984 858 864 1002 678 588 S64 636 480 636 1350 1068 414 816 960 648 768 1092 912 1092 690 702 1050 606 648 1032 1500 1254 708 1014 .235 .324 .320 .312 .416 .230 -293 .355 .285 .289 .393 •325 .147 .268 .420 .246 .238 .373 .253 .278 .281 .204 •348 .386 .274 .328 .378 .374 .150 .263 .393 .267 .241 .355 .321 .215 .229 .196 .284 .304 .256 .339 .305 .295 .139 .242 .291 .232 .007 .038 .058 .048 .073 .077 .019 .073 .011 .042 .034 .047 ..003 .013 .031 .023 .011 .065 .019 .027 .034 .014 .023 .073 .003 ct «nc; v ,3vj .027 .062 .011 .023 .027' .019 .019 .065 .062 .017 .017 .017 .027 .041 .000 .048 -017 -047 .004 .,021 .003 007 .22 .22 -55 .12 .44 .11 .44 -33 -55 -33 1.30 .50 A9 .50 1.20 .11 .00 .12 .55 .22 .22 .28 -75 .33 .33 .66 1.10 .11 .33 -55 1.00 .44 .00 .33 .40 .20 .10 .00 .20 .•10 .55 .60 .80 -00 .42 .37 .90 .20 .60 80 40 80 60 20 40 80 80 100 80 100 80 80 40 100 80 SO 80 60 80 100 60 60 100 80 80 60 100 80 80 100 100 100 80 60 80 60 60 80 100 80 60 80 100 80 100 80 H 03 O TABUS BXVII BSSIC DATA P Q P XTTp'T’O'PY 'ptP 't\’t ,(tit.' Fixation; Subject Age Ebs jper Minute Edu­ cation ?hy: 1. 2. 34. 5. 6. 9- 10 . 11 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 24 30 27 23 26 29 34 25 35 29 30 26 26 33 51 26 636 f^ 1 756 762 936 414 972 304 876 672 1152 1218 618 1110 1092 864 nr\<> 562 883 1266 660 1020 756 528 950 588 912 816 1104 564 546 552 per 2k ?,egret,sic OvI' il'lTi R-;fixatiorIS per Line Edu­ Edu- ' Edu­ Historv cation Physics H: story cation Physics History cation Physics History .. — (jo ~7286 r20 "_r012 ~ ,on'7 7239“ ' * .44 .**/ 1212 ,271 .391 .0.48 .299 .054 ,027 .50 .33 +n y 1116 .296 .232 .306 .017 .030 .003 .66 ,60 -55 /*> m 0 .270 594 .017 .214 .2 ? .00 .034 -12 3QO 546 .412 .096 .479 '*/sS .081 ■.20 .55 ~>C\L 1086 .223 .246 .011 »onn V-w.00 .015 .00 .200 744 .231 .231 .038 .034 .22 .11 .059 <**AO 4612 .267 .289 .316.038 .00 ' .22 .019 .069 .20 936 246 .224 .243 .019 .023 .11 .019 .20 .33 1002 .197 .211 .235 .015 .058 .00 .22 .013 .40 810 .310 .290 .246 .019 .010 .023 .11 .00 • 33 01 o 956 r010 .174 .003 .007 .004 .11 .11 .12 0 7 864 ^266 .306 .254 .007 .011 ■ .024 .30 .44. 750 .266 ,290 >305 .065 .027 .22 .11 .041 .77 666 .216 .363 .319 .019 .052 .073 .22 .55 ■ -30 552 .278 .316 316 .015 .030 .015.11 .11 .11 Percent Comprehension Edu­ cation Physics Hi3tor; 80 100 SO 80 60 80 100 so 60 ' 100 100 100 80 60 20 20 80 100 100 100 4-0 100 80 100 ' 100 100 8060 60 40' 80 SO 100 100 100 20 60 100 100 40 SO 60 100 80 40 60 80 80 cn -a A PPE HD IX B COPIES OP PRACTICE AITD TEST PASSAGES Education Practice Passage The problem of conscience falls w ith in the province of ethics and is concerned w ith the in q u iry as to the origin and nature of the principles which underlie rig h t conduct. In the growth of language, the general meaning of morals has been restricted so as to apply solely to the specific sphere of commendable customs. A radical dis­ tinction between customs rig h t and wrong has thus become crystal­ lized in language. The im p o rt of this is significant, for it indicates a natural trend o f thought which differentiates conduct as rig h t and wrong. The question naturally suggests itself, w hat is the ground for this distinction? A reason for this classification of conduct is naturally demanded, and in the various attempts to render a satisfactory account of so evident and universal a distinction, two tendencies of thought are evident. The one would explain the recognized difference between rig ht and wrong conduct as an immediate deliverance of conscious­ ness, that is, knowledge which is in tu itiv e ly discerned. The opposed school o f thought would insist that such a distinction is obviously the outcome of experience and the gradual growth of ethical con­ sciousness which is capable o f discerning ever more clearly between rig h t and wrong, the good and evil, Education Tast Passage Concerning the origin of knowledge, there are two views, ind i­ cating opposite tendencies in thought, known as rationalism and em­ piricism . The former insists that the source of all knowledge is p rim a rily in the mind inasmuch as there are certain fundamental principles of which the mind is immediately aware and which, there­ fore, m odify and condition all experience. Such a view allows as prim al elements of knowledge the original data given through sense perception. I t only insists th a t such data are not the sole source o f knowledge, but that the mind also furnishes its own contributing factors to the complete result. The E m piricist holds that the m ind is a tabula rasa, a surface smooth and clean, impressionable to the various sensory stimulations w hich w rite upon it the records of experience. The adherents of this doctrine very stoutly m aintain that the so-called innate ideas, when subjected to the nearer scruitiny of a critical analysis, w ill be found reducible to simpler elements which are manifestly the product of experience. Our idea o f causation, it is insisted, is not an in tu itiv e possession, b u t it has grown w ith our growth through repeated ob­ servations o f nature which indicate an in v a ria b ility and u n ifo rm ity which we unconsciously generalize into an all-embracing form ula of universal causation. 141 Physics Practice Passage Newton formulated three propositions which are known as New­ ton’s Laws of M otion and which are the axioms upon which the science of dynamics is based. The first law is that every body con­ tinues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line ex­ cept in so far as it is compelled to change that state by force impres­ sed upon it. This law merely states that a change of motion never occurs except as the result of force, so that if a body is at rest it w ill remain at rest unless some force acts upon it, or if it is in motion it w ill remain in motion w ith uniform velocity unless some force acts upon it. N ew ton’s second law of motion states that the time of change in the linear momentum of a body is proportional to the force acting upon the body, and the change takes place in the direction of the force. This law implies th a t a force w ill produce a change o f momen­ tum proportional to itself and in its own direction whether the body is a t rest or in m otion and whether or not other forces are acting upon it. For example, if a bullet were shot horizontally over a body of s till water, it would strike the w ater at the same instant as if it were dropped vertically. ! In recent years m aterial progress has been made in analyzing the phenomena connected w ith the acts of emission and absorption of lig h t and other forms of radiant energy. Evidence shows that the emitters of lig h t are atoms and molecules, that is, the energy alone of atoms and molecules is transformed into lig h t energy. Thus it is not the filam ent of a lamp as a whole which gives out the ligh t, but rather the individual atoms which make up the filament. Sim ilarly, when lig h t strikes the surface of objects and some of its energy is transformed into heat, it is only the atoms and molecules composing the bodies which act as agents for changing this energy into heat energy. These acts of atomic and molecular emission and absorption in their many different aspects are not readily explained by the wave theory of lig h t, but rather are more easily understood in terms of some kind of corpuscular theory. Since some of the phenomena of the propagation of lig h t cannot yet be explained by any corpuscular theory, there is created a situation in which the propagation o f light w ith its attending phenomena is accounted for by the wave theory, and the acts of emission and absorption, together w ith sim ilar phe­ nomena, by a corpuscular theory. The reconciliation of these oppos­ ing aspects of the theory of lig h t is one of the m ajor problems of present science. History Practice Passage In its firs t stage the revolution in Russia extended only to the state apparatus and the aristocracy, while in its second stage, which be­ gan w ith the insurrection of a group of arm v officers in December, 1825, the pivotal position was occunied bv the intelligentsia, a product of the closer intellectual contact w ith western Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. B y the latter h alf of the reign of Alexander T, the younger generation of the n o b ilitv and of the rising middle class had begun to study the idealistic philosophy of Germany and the w ritings of the early socialist thinkers of France. The development of the Russian intelligentsia was conditioned by its isolation from business and public life and by its psychological make up. The members of this class, catholic in their interests and sympathies, cherished lo fty ideals but remained entirely ignorant of the prosaic aspects of existence in that they demanded all or noth­ ing, scorned gradual, concrete achievement, and were prone to fa ta l­ istic despair. The movement o f the intelligentsia resembled nothing so much as a permanent discussion club, where ecstatic speeches about the magnificent future offered an escape from harsh reality. A n outstanding manifestation of this utopianism was the unwar­ ranted idealization of the masses, especially the peasants. 144 History Test Passage Throughout the nineteenth century the rootless idealism of the in­ telligentsia was challenged only by the nihilists of the 1860’s who professed extreme utilitarianism and submitted all matters to the acid test of reason. But the n ih ilist predisposition to a sober view of re a lity was soon overwhelmed by the longing of the intelligentsia to end its isolation and to bridge the gulf which separated it from the masses. The movement known as ‘'going to the people” was p articula rly strong in the iS 7o’s, however it failed to attain any con­ crete results largely because of the distrust and inertia of the masses. In th e ir desperation many of the intelligentsia then turned to terrorism, typ ica lly a weapon of the self-sacrificing idealistic in d iv id ­ ual. T his form of struggle was of slight practical value, however, for the terrorist organizations were undermined by harsh govern­ mental repression and by the corruption inherent in large scale con­ spiratorial operations. Whether committed to terrorist action or choosing the slower processes of underground propaganda and edu­ cation, the Russian intelligentsia persisted in idealizing the peasantry and its communal form of agrarian organization. The la tte r was viewed as the survival of an early agrarian communism, a bulwark against the in filtra tio n of western capitalism, and a basis fo r the future socialist organization of the land. APPENDIX C PREHENSION TESTS EOR PRACTICE AND TEST PASSAGES 146 APPENDIX C COMPREHENSION TESTS FOR PRACTICE AND TEST PASSAGES DIRECTIONS: Answer* each question by underlining YES if the statement is true according to the passage, or by underlining NO if the statement is false according to the passage. These directions will apply to all passages read. PRACTICE PHYSICS PASSAGE YES NO 1. This passage explains two of Newton*s laws of Motion. YES NO 2. The science of dynamics is based on Newton*s Laws of Motion. YES NO 3. Neglecting extraneous forces a body moving at a uniform velocity travels in a straight line. YES NO 4. A body in motion will be restored to a state of rest of its own accord. YES NO 5. A force has more effect upon a body already In motion than one at rest. TEST PHYSICS PASSAGE . YES NO 1 YES NO 2. The filament of a lamp as a whole gives out light YES NO 3. Atoms and molecules are the agents for turning light into heat energy. YES NO 4. The corpuscular theory accounts for the propaga­ tion of light. YES NO 5. Modern science has reconciled the corpuscular and wave theories of light. This passage relates to the emission and absorp­ tion of radiant energy. ' PRACTICE HISTORY PASSAGE YES NO 1. This passage describes three stages of the Russian Revolution. YES NO 2. The social scientists of western Europe exerted an influence upon the younger generation of Russians. 147 YES NO 3. The intelligentsia were of a realistic turn of mind. YES NO 4. The intelligentsia were composed of a frustrated clique of individuals. YES NO 5. It may be inferred that the intelligentsia were an ineffective group of individuals. ■TEST HISTORY PASSAGE YES NO 1. This passage describes the appearance of the nihilist movement in Russia. YES NO 2. The intelligentsia usurped the power of the nihilists in 1860. YES NO 3. The nihilists were extremely utilitarian In view­ point. YES NO 4. The intelligentsia resorted to terrorism to control the masses. YES NO 5. The intelligentsia Idealized those who lived off the soil. PRACTICE EDUCATION PASSAGE YES NO 1. This passage discusses the development of conduct. YES NO 2. Morality is synonymous with correct behavior. YES NO 3. Ideas of right and wrong exist apart from language. YES NO 4. According to one view, people naturally know the difference between right and wrong. YES NO 5. According to the other view, Ideas of right and wrong are the outcome of a conversion experience. TEST EDUCATION PASSAGE YES NO 1. Ihe central idea of this passage is that experience molds the mind. YES NO 2. The Rationalist denies the existence of Innate Ideas. YES NO 3. The Empiricist accepts both Innate Ideas and exper­ ience • 148 YES NO 4. Empiricism ia free of intuitive reasoning. "YES NO 5. It may be inferred that the author is a Rational­ ist. BIBLI OGt'BAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Adler, Mortimer J. How to Read a Book. and Schuster, 1940. Pp. lx + 398.~ Hew York: Simon 2. Anderson, Irving H. "Studies in the Eye-Movements of Good and Poor Readers," Studies in Psychology of Reading, I, pp. 1-35. University of Iowa Studies in Psychology, Ho. 21. Psychological Monographs, XLVIII, Ho. 3. Princeton, Hew Jersey: Psychological Review Co., 1937. 3 . ___________________ . "The Opthalm-0-Graph and Metron-0Scope Evaluated' in the Light of Recent Research on the Psychology of Reading," Indiana State Teachers College Journal, XII (January, 1941), 60-63. 4. Anderson, Irving II., and Dearborn, Walter P. "Reading Ability As Related to College Achievement," Journal of Psychology, XI, 587-396. .5. Anderson, Irving II., and Morse, William C. "The Place of Instrumentation in the Reading Program: I. Evaluation of the Opthalm-0-Graph," Journal of Experimental Education, XIV (March, 1946), 256-262. “ 6. Artley, A. Sterl. "Influence of the Field Studied on the Reading Attitudes and Skills Heeded," pp. 39-42 in Improv­ ing Reading in Content Fields. Supplementary Educational Monographs, Ho. 62. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947. Pp. viii + 240. 7. Broom, M. Eustace; Douglas, Josephine; and Rudd, Marion. "On the Validity of Silent Reading Tests," Journal of Ap­ plied Psychology, XV, Ho. 1, 35-38. 8. Buswe11, Guy Thomas. Fundamental Reading Habits: A Study of Their Development. Supplementary Educational Monographs, Ho. 21. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1922. Pp. xiv + 150. 9. _________ _________ . How Adults Read.Supplementary EducatiohaT Monographs, EcT. 45. Chicago: The University of Chicago Pres3,. 1937. Pp. xiii + 158. 10. Carmichael, Leonard, and Dearborn, Walter F. Reading and Visual Fatigue. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947. Pp. xiv + 483. 150 151 11. Chamberlin, John. "Fadiman for the Millions, 11 Saturday Evening Post, CXIII (January 11, 1941), 27, 58-Gi; 12. Dearborn, Walter Fenno. "The Psychology of heading," Archives of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods. W'TlJa^hT~lW)T7-T32. ----- ------ -------------------13. Dearborn, Walter F.; Anderson, Irving II.; and Bray/'s ter, James R. "Controlled Reading by Means of a Motion Picture Technique," Psychological Record, II (May, 1938), 219-227. 14. Eurich, Alvin C. "The Reliability and Validity of Photo­ graphic Eye-Movement Records," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXIV (February, 19337, 118-122. 15. . "Additional Data on the Reliability and Validity of Photographic Eye-Movement Records," Journal of Educational Ps:/-chology, XXIV (May, 1933), 380-384. 16. Flesch, Rudolph. The Art of Plain Talk. and Brothers, 1946. Pp. xiii + 210. Rev/ York: Harper 17. Gates, Arthur I. "An.Experimental and Statistical Study of Reading and Reading Tests," Journal of Educational Psychol­ ogy, XII (September, 1921), 503-14, 378-91, 445-464. 18. . "Diagnosis and Remediation in Reading," Elementary English Review, XIX (December, 1942), 289-290. .19. Gilbert, Luther C., and Gilbert, Doris Wilcox. "Reading before the Eye-Movement Camera Versus Reading away from It," Elementary School Journal, XLII (February, 1942), 443-447. 20. Gould, George LI. "Reading a Book-Page Instantaneously," Scientific American Supplement, IXXIV (September 14, 1912), 175. 21. Gray, William S. "The ITature and Types of Reading," pp. 2338 in The Teaching of Reading: A Second Report, thirtysixth yearbook of the Rational Society for the Study of Edu­ cation, Part I. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Pub­ lishing Company, 1937. Pp. vii + 422. . 22. Gray, William S., ert al. Reading in General Education. Washington: American Council of Education, 1940. Pp. xiii + 464. 23. Hoffman, A. C .; Wellman, B .; and Carmichael, L. "A Quanti­ tative Comparison of the Electrical and Photographic Tech­ niques of Eye-Movement Recording," Journal of Experimental Psychology, XXIV (January, 1939), 40-53. 152 24. Horn, Ernest. Methods of Instruction in the Social Studies. Now York: Scribner's, 1937. Pp. xix + 525. 25. Huey, Sclimincl Burke. The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915. “ Pp.'xvi + 469.' 2 G . Imus, Henry A.; Rothney, John W. LI.; and Bear, Robert It. An Evaluation of Visual Factors in Reading. Hanover, New Hampshire: Dartmouth Col lego" Pub li ca ti ons, 195S. Pp. 144. 27. Judd, Charles Hubbard, and Buswell, Guy Thomas. Silent Reading: A. Study of the Various Types. Suppleinentary Edu­ cational monographs, TToT 23. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1922. Pp. xiv + 160. 28. Leary, Bernice E. "The Role of'Reading in the Content Fields," pp. 10-13 in Improving Reading in Content Fields. Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 62. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947. Pp. viii + 240. 29. Leary, Bernice E., and Gray, William S. "Reading Problems in Content Fields," pp. 113-185 in Reading in General Edu­ cation. Washington: American Council on Education, 1940. Pp. xiii + 464. 30. Ledbetter, Frances Gresham. Reading Reactions for Varied Types of Subject matter: . An Analytical Study of the Eye Movements of Eleventh Grade Pupils. Unpublished doctor1s dissertation, New York University, 1945. Pp. xiii + 255. 31. Litterer, Oscar F. "An Experimental Analysis of Reading Performance," Journal of Experimental Education, I (Septem­ ber, 1932), 28-33. 32. Lorge, Irving. "Predicting Readability," Teachers Coliego Record, XLV (March, 1944), 404-419. 33. MeCaul, Robert L. "Economical Training in Reading at the Secondary-School Level," High School Journal, XXI (April, 1938), 117-125. 34. Morgan, James. Theodore Roosevelt. and Dunlap, Ids';: Pp. xii + 324. New York: Grosset 35. Morse, William C. A Comparison of the Eye-Movements of Average Fifth and Seventh-Grade 'Pupils Reading Materials of Corresponding Difficulty. Unpublished doctor1,s' dissertation, University of Michigan, 1947. Pp. vii + 156. 36. Paterson, D. G«, and Tinker, M. A. "Time Limit vs. Work Limit Methods," American Journal of Psychology, XLII (Jan­ uary, 1930), 101-104. JlS 153 37. Paters on, Donalcl G., and Tinker, IIIlea A. Hon to Hake Typo He adab le . Hew York: Harper and Brothers, 1940. Pp. xix +209. 38. Pres soy, L. W., and Pressey, S. L. "A Critical Study of the Concept of Silent Pleading Ability," journal of Educa­ tional Psychology, XII (January, 1921), 25-31. 39. Pringle, Henry Fowles. The odor e Roosevelt. Hen York: court, Brace and Company, 1931.7"" Pp. x + 627. Har- 40. Hebert, G. ITovin. "A laboratory Study of the Reading of Familiar Formulas," Journal of Educational Psychology, XHIIT (March, 1932), 192-20oT“--------------------- “----41. ____ . "A Laboratory Study of the Pleading of Familiar Humerals,11 Jj^nal of Educational Psychology, XXIII (January, 1932 ), 55-45.” 42. Robinson, Francis P. The .Role of Eye Movements in Reading with an Evaluation of Techniques for Their Improvement. University of Iowa Studies, "Ho. 39. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1933. Pp. 52. 43. Robinson, Francis P., and Hall, Prudence. "Studies of Higher-Level Reading, Abilities," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXII (April, 1941), 241-252. 44. Schelnfeld, Amrarn. You and Heredity. Hew York: ick A. Stokes Company, 1939. Pp. xvii + 454. Freder­ 45. Schmidt, William Anton. An Experimental Study in the Psych­ ology of Reading. Supplementary Educational monographs, Ho. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1917. Pp. iv + 126. 46. Seibert, Earl William. Re ading Reactions for Varied Tgrpe s of Subject Hatter: An Analytical Study of the Eye Move­ ments of Eighth Grade Pupils. Unpiiblished doc tor*'a disser­ tation, Hew York University, 1943. Pp. xiv + 238. 47. Stone, Lewis Gordon. Reading Reactions for Varied Types of Subject IJatter: An Ana lytica'l 'Study "of 'the Eye -movements of College Freshmen. Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Hew York University, 1941. Pp. xiv + 273. 48. Strang, Ruth. Problems in the Improvement of Reading, in High School and College. Lancaster,.Pa.: The Science Press ■ "Printing Co., 1940. Pp. 425. 49. Stroud, J. B. "A Critical Hote on Reading," Psychological Bulletin, XXXIX (March, 1942), 175-178. 154 50. Terry, Paul Washington. How numerals Are Read. Supplement­ ary Educational Monographs, Ho. 18. Chicago: The Univer­ sity of Chicago Press, 1922. Pp. xii + 109. 51. Tinker, Miles A. "A Photographic Study of Eye Movements in Reading Formulae," Genetic Psychology Monographs, III, ■ Ho. 2 (February, 1928), 69-182". 52. ____________ "The Role of Eye -Mo veme n ts In Diagnostic and Remedial Reading," School and Society, iCXXIX (February, 1954), 147-148. 55. _______________ . "Eye-Movements in Reading," Journal of Educational Research, XXX (December, 1956), 241-277. 54. ____ . "Reliability and Validity of Eye-Movement Measures of Reading," Journal of Experimental Psych­ ology, XIX (December, 1956), 752-746. 55. ___ ___________. "The Study of Eye Movements in Reading," Wy'cliolTy^ica'l'Bu 1letin, XLIII (March, 1946), 95-120. 56. Traxler, Arthur E . , "Value of Controlled Reading: Summary of Opinion and Research," Journal of Experimental Educa­ tion, XI (June, 1945), 280-'892'. ‘ ' ■ 57. Walker, Robert Y. "The Eye-Movements of Good Readers," University of Iowa Studies in Psychology, Ho. 17, Psycho­ logical Monographs, XLIV, Ho. 3 (1955), 95-117.