|
|
|
francois
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2012, 04:49:15 AM » |
 Reply
|
After going through the test, I should practice a bit more!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Francois
|
|
|
|
Justan
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2012, 10:57:56 AM » |
Reply
|
Thanks for the reply!
According to the test I read a little over 300 wpm, much slower than I read many years ago. But my ability to remember details is still pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
francois
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 11:53:07 AM » |
Reply
|
Thanks for the reply!
According to the test I read a little over 300 wpm, much slower than I read many years ago. But my ability to remember details is still pretty good.
I got only 12% above average…  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Francois
|
|
|
|
Farmer
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2012, 05:57:30 AM » |
Reply
|
640 with all the questions correct, but there's no way I could sustain that (and the recall) over a longer reading session - I think half that would be normal for me over an extended period and perhaps 2/3 or 3/4 of that for longer, but relatively short (a few pages) where for some reason I wanted to read through quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Justan
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2012, 08:16:00 AM » |
Reply
|
> …there's no way I could sustain that (and the recall) over a longer reading session…
I remember coming across a correlation on the level of interest one has of a subject and the reading speed. IIRC, when something is interesting, people will tend to read more slowly, but if a topic is not so interesting, people will tend to skim.
Of course, knowing you’re gonna be tested changes the formula.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wolfnowl
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2012, 04:34:42 PM » |
Reply
|
830... that's about right for me, but for longer sessions it's probably more like 5-600.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
amolitor
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2012, 01:19:26 PM » |
Reply
|
It's unfortunate that the texts are books I've read, so it's not clear whether I am reading better or worse, faster or slower. The questions to check me are worthless, since I happen to pretty much know the answers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PierreVandevenne
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2012, 02:51:06 PM » |
Reply
|
Only 592 wpm - still have to work on my English reading skills I guess...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
canon3
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2012, 09:51:56 AM » |
Reply
|
i only made 448 wpm it was a third grader reading well that means that my English is not good enough
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Weldon
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2012, 02:56:10 PM » |
Reply
|
I didn't even look and I'm one of those guys who goes through an average paperback in 90-120 minutes. Don't care.. The faster anyone reads the less accurate their comprehension. And the type and purpose of material changes a persons reading rate. Most anyone can fly through their latest favourite fiction novel, but give them a math or history text and the rate changes drastically. No matter a persons reading speed, they will be limited by their comprehension whether it be advanced math, physics, or engineering theory..
What I've noticed through years of teaching (and a few political forums) is the ability to comprehend sits alone, far and above the rate at which one reads. Give me a slow careful and thoughtful reader over a fast/speed reader any day of the week.
"Reading speed" means about the same to me as how many megapixels my sensor has..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kikashi
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2012, 04:11:02 PM » |
Reply
|
691, and all three questions correct. Of course, a minute later I'd forgotten everything about it.
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
