Does photoreading work

Answer 1

In January of 2000 Dr. Danielle S. McNamara submitted a preliminary report to the NASA Ames Research Center on photoreading. McNamara enrolled in a PhotoReading workshop under the tutelage of an expert who, in three years, had trained about 150 individuals in PhotoReading. The trainee spent two months learning the PhotoReading technique. The two participants named in the study were "(a) the PhotoReading trainee who participated ina two-day photoreading workshop, and (b) the photoreading expert who provided the PhotoReading workshop." (McNamara 4). The study design included two normal pretests, followed by parallel versions of five reading tests employing the PhotoReading technique. One test was the Nelson Reading Comprehension Test (forms G and H) and the Verbal Reasoning section of the MCAT. The other two tests were generated by the experimenter. This study tests only difficult expository texts because "PhotoReading has been claimed to be particularly effective for this type of text" (McNamara 5). The texts used here involve subjects like physiology, perception, and Biology. Each question from these texts were generated around a single idea or sentence within each text. According to McNamara "The information in the text that is targeted by the question generally requires little prior knowledge and little active processing of the text to understand" (McNamara 6). The results of the study generally follow the pattern that PhotoReading and normal reading require a similar amount of time to complete. For example, the expert scored 37 of 38 possible questions correct with normal reading taking 19.43 minutes to do so. Then the expert took a similar test after PhotoReading the passage and scored a 38 out of 38 possible questions correct in a time of 18.13 minutes. McNamara took the same test, and scored a 92% both times. However, photoreading took 21.30 minutes whereas regular reading took 15.80 minutes. These results show that photoreading can work, but they do not support the 25,000 words per minute claims. In a text about perception, the expert took 8.82 minutes to read the text using normal reading. Then, he photoread the text in 0.87 minutes and proceeded to read the text for another 8.12 minutes before he completed the process. In the text involving normal reading he answered three questions correctly out of eight. Photoreading, he scored only 1 out of 8 correctly. These results do not support assertions that Photoreading help one study faster and with greater comprehension than with ordinary reading techniques. To conclude the study, McNamara noted that, "In terms of words per minute (wpm) spent reading, there was no difference between normal reading (M = 114 wpm) and PhotoReading (M=112 wpm)" (10). So why is it that so many people tout photoreading? In her conclusion, McNamara states that, "One aspect of the PhotoReading technique is that it leaves the reader with a false sense of confidence." (12).

Answer 2

Photoreading is a controversial technique that claims to increase reading speed and comprehension by using the subconscious mind to absorb information from entire pages at once. However, there is limited scientific evidence to support its effectiveness, and many experts suggest that traditional reading methods are more reliable for deep comprehension and retention of information.