Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Adjunct question research has typically focused on the effects of adjunct questions on improving the learning of college students. This study investigated the effects of inserted and massed postquestions (inference, main idea, and detail), with and without feedback, on improving the comprehension skills of adolescents labeled as reading disabled. Students practiced using adjunct questions for 6 weeks. The results suggested that inserted questions (and to a lesser extent massed postquestions) were beneficial in improving the comprehension of texts that did not contain adjunct questions. Specifically, the results indicated that (a) inserted questions were more effective than massed postquestions or no questions, (b) massed postquestions were more effective than no questions, and (c) the effects of inserted questions on comprehension increased over the time of treatment. The beneficial effects of feedback were limited to inference and main idea questions. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1025 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!