Greetings,
i just READ a report by nasa on PR and they said it didn`t work for such materials like physiology and biology especially in conceptual and open-ended questions where they did an expriment for PR expert and a trainee with pretests by normal reading and then posttests by photoreading to see if there is a real benefit from it as 25,000 wpm with 4.5/5 comprehension is just too good to be true so they carried out the tests and somehow later when the PR expert was going to take the physiology,biology test she thought she had comprehension of 4.5 out of 5 and suggested a c+ but she answered the choose with 2 correct out of 6 and didn`t answer conceptual questions at all e.g fill in the spaces at the end she didn`t pass the exam also she took quite some time although she read the text before and so later after comparing the results they found it is inbenefitical as comprehension of the texts and even courses become superficial missing conceptual and realtionships between reading materials in different subjects and so providing with a false confidence as in the case of the expert that thought she had comprehension of 4.5/5 but had only 2/5 with less speed and so they concluded unlike what paul scheele said about :when the mind is relaxed is the best for accelerative learning unlike the chattering mind which is full of thoughts but unlike this they thought that when the mind is full of thought it becomes more active increasing relationships between info entering the mind while in this relaxed state the mind tends to be less active gaining just superficial information so afterall they concluded that PR isn`t the type for intelligent reader ,so what are the cons and pros of PR afterall and is this report is true or is it another fake about PR as it had tabular results of all the tests and even the texts and it was rather disappointing after all,so is the PR is like this or what because this is confusing me and it is NASA .
Jack
