English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Adapted alternating treatments designs were used to evaluate three computer-based flashcard reading interventions (1-s, 3-s, or 5-s response intervals) across two students with disabilities. When learning was plotted with cumulative instructional sessions on the horizontal axis, the session-series graphs suggest that the interventions were similarly effective. When the same data were plotted as a function of cumulative instructional seconds, time-series graphs suggest that the 1-s intervention caused the most rapid learning for one student. Discussion focuses on applied implications of comparative effectiveness studies and why measures of cumulative instructional time are needed to identify the most effective intervention(s).Comparative effectiveness studies may not identify the intervention which causes the most rapid learning.Session-series repeated measures are not the same as time-series repeated measures.Measuring the time students spend in each intervention (i.e., cumulative instructional seconds) allows practitioners to identify interventions that enhance learning most rapidly.Student time spent working under interventions is critical for drawing applied conclusions.

Cumulative Instructional Time and Relative Effectiveness Conclusions: Extending Research on Response Intervals, Learning, and Measurement Scale