Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer NASA report on PhotoReading

Just came accross PhotoReading on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoReading) where they included a short reference of a report on the subject from NASA. The full report is at: (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20000011599_2000009345.pdf.).
Just wanted some other points of view and reactions. Is NASA wrong? How can a PhotoReading expert show such dismal results when tested? Did anyone at LS read the NASA report?

Thanks

I love photoreading because I only get the info I need or want. There a study out that says its scientically impossible for a bumble bee to fly too . On another note my mom never taking a photoreading course but she know it work because when she was in school she was able to visually go back to a page in a book when she was taking a test to get a answer how can Nasa explain that.Don't let their belief and seeds sink in too deep they are wrong.

If you checked out the the full NASA report it shows simply that the Expert PhotoReader took longer to go through the material with similar or less comprehension.

So who was the expert? Paul Scheele according to the report.

Paul, step up. What's your side of the story?

I don't want to be bashing LS here over this NASA study. I'm just looking for an answer. For the record, I have a lot of respect for this company. They put out some great products. And as far as studies go, NASA or not, this one really sucks! There are two test subjects in the study, one of them being the author! That can't be very impartial. The number of test subjects (2 or maybe just 1; how can the tester be a test subject!?) is far too low for this study to have any real validity.
I'm sure the people at LS just roll their eyes when they see this come up and I can't very well blame them.
Anyway, the bottom line is, the NASA study on Photoreading is at best questionable and most likely invalid!
Maybe LS should do a study of its own to put this to rest? It would certainly add valuble data to the PhotoReading product.

If my memory serves me, the moderator of this Forum answered a similar question about the NASA study a while back. You could do a search for it.

Actually the expert is unknown. It wasn't Paul. What gives you the impression it was Paul? See his comments http://www.learningstrategies.com/PhotoReading/NASA

A close look at the study it is testing for speed reading of 25,000 wpm. PhotoReading is not reading at 25,000 wpm. The expert did not agree to participate in all the experiments.

Learning Strategies has done plenty of studies. I had discussed this with Paul back in 2004. He pointed out, Any study involving human subjects are subjective. Any research done by Learning Strategies is considered biased.

As to PhotoReading being a legitimate reading system. It is. For the license to teach PhotoReading the system was checked out and a license granted in 1986.

It's a pity that it's difficult to promote PhotoReading without it seeming like a gimmick. I'd love to be teaching this to students as they enter High school. The kids really fly with the system. Mostly because they haven't spent years already doing it the hard way. Which is great for learning to read but limiting for the amount of reading that is out there these days.

Check out the front page of the PhotoReading book and experiment with it as suggested on the PhotoReading book.

Alex