The goal for the students was to be able to read the text as quickly as possible while retaining the information. Once students were done reading, they would record their time to the nearest 10 seconds. Students would then turn the text over and take a ten question multiple choice exam that asked comprehension questions in the target language. Finally, students would grade their comprehension test together as a class and record their score out of ten.

Students would then use their scores to reflect on what they needed to do on the next free write. A score of 0-6 meant slow down, 7-8 meant stay the same, and 9-10 meant speed up. These categories were divided this way in order to help students pace themselves. The reason 0-6 suggested that students slow down was so students could take their time and retain more information. The reason 7-8 suggested that students stay the same was that getting 7-8 answers correct proved that students were pushing the limit of quickly reading while also showing understanding of the material. Finally, the reason 9-10 suggested that students speed up was because getting this number correct told me, as an instructor, that the student could potentially read faster. The overall purpose of this method was to prepare students to read as quickly as possible while retaining as much information as they could. This was done to prepare them for the AP exam where they would have a select number of passages and a limited time to read through them. Thus, this method was a good way of creating a benchmark for students to begin meta-cognitive thinking about their ability to manipulate the language at the level they were at and if they continued going forward with the language.

The next important data point collected from the Speed Reads was that of words per minute (WPM) read. The mean for the first week for group 1 and 2 respectively were 136.2 and 167.76. The final mean for group 1 and 2 respectively were 153.1 and 137.18. Following a t-test of both groups, neither data point set for either group was statistically significant. After four weeks of staying relatively stable, the mean of group 1 began a pattern of increase and group 2 began a pattern of decrease. This informed me that on average students in group 2 were reading fewer words per minute and group 1 was reading more. The inverting of data for the classes is extremely interesting. I struggled to find explanations for this reversal. At first I thought that the increase of difficulty of the text would have caused the decline of WPM as students had to take more time to understand the text, but group 1 disproves this. After week 5 and the large drop in WPM for group 2, I shifted classroom activities to focus more on reading comprehension. We would do activities that would manipulate texts so that students would be exposed to as much input as possible. This data in combination with the number of correct answers shows me that the students were still on average scoring six out of ten correct. This told me that they were still getting more than half correct and challenging themselves to read as quickly as possible.

Over the six weeks of speed reads, I collected a variety of data. The data that focused most on overall comprehension would be the number of correct responses on comprehension tests. The first week’s mean for group 1 and 2 respectively were 6.45 and 6.59 correct. This informed me that, on average, the students were scoring on the border between “need to slow down” and “stay the same”. The final mean for groups 1 and 2 respectively were 6.45 and 6.82 correct. Following a t-test of of both groups, neither data point set for either group was statistically significant. The entire data is represented in the graph below. Students on average stayed very consistent on comprehension over the six weeks. Ideally, the texts would be at the same difficulty level, but as the weeks went on, the difficulty of the texts also increased because of the curriculum implemented. Students showed growth through their ability to maintain a consistent score as the difficulty of the speed reading texts increased.

Following the results above, I wanted to analyze the data concerning the number of problems correct to see if there was any explanation for the change in words per minute. As stated above, after each week, they categorized their scores; 0-6 slow down, 7-8 stay the same, 9-10 speed up. In the charts below are the percentages of the total number of times the students were categorized. The total number of slow down, stay the same, and speed up for group 1 and group 2 during the six weeks respectively were: 46, 43, 31 and 43, 41, 27. This data showed me that students tended to read either in the stay the same category or slow down. I took this data and then expanded it to see if the students were able to meet the goal of their category. For example, if the category was slow down, did their WPM decrease the next speed write? My thinking behind it was that if students slowed down they would be able to comprehend the material, because they spent more time on it and thus that would be reflected in their score. This data also supported the previous data that the groups’ averages were around 6 out of 10. The faster and stay the same categories for both groups totaled over 50% and thus more often students should have had a score of 7 or higher. Yet the average was 6. This told me that when students scored in the too slow category they must have scored very low in order to bring down the average a full point.

I next looked at the data to see the total number of times students either satisfied or did not satisfy the categories. Both classes had more students follow the category guides than not. This is important, because if the category told them to slow down they were likely to have followed the direction to slow down. This could potentially explain the drop in group 2’s WPM. If, as the difficulty increased their comprehension scores went down, they would have been asked to slow down their WPM. They were likely to have followed that direction and thus their WPM decreased. The leveling out of the WPM between weeks 5 and 6 could have been the students responding well to the slow pace and receiving high scores on their comprehension tests and being directed to keep the same pace.

My final question regarding this data was if students were able to satisfy more of the category directions than not. So for each student, I compared their individual completion of the category or failure to complete (yes or no) and assigned a yes to a student who had more completions than not, and I assigned a no to students who had less completions than not. This data told me that, again, group 2 were more consistent in following the category directions. That conclusion supported my previous hypothesis. I was surprised at group 1's data which informed me that students were more likely to have not met the goal for the categories. That, combined with the previous point, told me that the students were much less consistent. Yet again, on average, group 1 was able to consistently hold a 6 out of 10 on their comprehension quizzes while increasing their WPM. For these students, the guides might not have been helpful and thus did not impact their scores, because they had trouble following it.

Triangulation of Speed Reading with Pre- Survey and Climate Survey

Speed reading impacted the other data points as the students were able to hold a consistent level of comprehension over the study even though the difficulty of the texts increased. Their ability to maintain that consistency while the text increased showed me that there was academic growth over the study. There were potential factors that could have contributed to this growth: the teacher, the environment of the class, and the quality of the lessons. Though the data for this point did not show that flexible seating had a direct impact on their score, when combined with survey responses and student interviews, I could assume that the environment itself was positive, comfortable, fun, and relaxed. This was extremely important, because in order for students to learn and retain information efficiently, they needed to feel safe in their environment. This was supported by my literature review and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Students were able to get their needs met through the environment which flexible seating played an important part in creating and were able to maintain better focus and increased their ability to manipulate and understand the language. That conclusion is supported by the data in the speed read activities that showed consistent understanding while the content continued to increase in difficulty.