Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How and to What Extent Do Two Cover, Copy, and Compare Spelling Interventions Contribute to Spelling, Word Recognition, and Vocabulary Development?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We used an adapted alternating treatments design to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 spelling interventions on spelling acquisition and maintenance, word reading, and vocabulary in three first-grade students. The first intervention, Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC), involved having participants look at a word, cover it, write it, then compare the written response with the original stimulus. For the second intervention, Cover, Copy, and Compare + Sentence Definition (CCC + SD), CCC was supplemented with the experimenter reading a sentence containing the word and a brief definition of the word. Results showed that both interventions increased participants’ spelling at an equivalent rate, which was greater than a control condition. All participants showed greater gains in word reading in the 2 interventions than the control condition, and only 1 participant was better able to define words learned in the CCC + SD condition relative to the CCC condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Byrd Coleman, K., Curtin, G., … Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.

  • Bosman, A. M. T., van Huygevoort, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2006). Spelling feedback in an ICT-learning environment: Issues of proficiency, training efficiency, and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramlett, R., Cates, G. L., Savina, E., & Lauinger, B. (2010). Assessing effectiveness and efficiency of academic interventions in school psychology journals: 1995–2005. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 114–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watson, T. S., Meadows, T. J., Weaver, A., & Jackson, B. (2003). Instructional effectiveness and instructional efficiency as considerations for data-based decision making: An evaluation of interspersing procedures. School Psychology Review, 32, 601–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Codding, R. S., & Poncy, B. C. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Toward and explicit technology for generalizing academic behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling: Exclusion and stimulus equivalence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 451–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. M. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., & Ciancio, D. J. (2005). Screening for secondary intervention: Concept and context. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 494–499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., & Francis, D. J. (1994). Exploring connections among reading, spelling, and phonemic segmentation during first grade. Reading and Writing, 6, 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Novy, D. M., & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 456–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1993). Spelling interventions: A review of literature and implications for instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 175–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Loynachan, C. (1993). The basic spelling vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 263–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grskovic, J. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving the spelling performance of students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbert, E. R., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2000). A comparison of cover, copy, and compare and a traditional spelling intervention for an adolescent with a conduct disorder. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 22(3), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuffin, M. E., Martz, S. A., & Heron, T. E. (1997). The effects of self-correction versus traditional spelling on the spelling performance and maintenance of third grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 463–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T. F., Reiter, S. M., Mabee, W. S., & Byram, B. J. (1991). An analysis and replication of the Add-A-Word spelling program with mildly handicapped middle school students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T. F., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Improving academic performance through self-management: Cover, copy, and compare. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. F., Hern, C. L., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). The effects of the copy, cover, compare approach in increasing spelling accuracy with learning disabled students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 378–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Child Health, Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nies, K. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (2006). Enhancing spelling performance in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nist, L., & Joseph, L. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noell, G. H., Connell, J. E., & Duhon, G. J. (2006). Spontaneous response generalization during whole word instruction: Reading to spell and spelling to read. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okyere, B. A., Heron, T. E., & Goddard, Y. (1997). Effects of self-correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of the written spelling of elementary school children. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedita, J. (2005). Effective vocabulary instruction. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 2, 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H. (2008). Theoretical and applied implications of precisely measuring learning rates. School Psychology Review, 37, 309–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H. (2010). Applied comparative effectiveness researchers must measure learning rates: A commentary on efficiency articles. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 166–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997a). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Pierce, N. L. (1992). Cover, copy, and compare: Increasing geography accuracy in students with behavior disorders. School Psychology Review, 21, 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Watson, T. S. (1995). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Assessment in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 20, 207–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., & Daly, E. J. (2010). Improving generalization of academic skills: Commentary on the special series. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 106–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning trial rates by increasing student response rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997b). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1989). A comparison of a taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 123–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: A method for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 412–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhry, J. K., & Shepherd, M. J. (1993). Segmentation/spelling instruction as part of a first-grade reading program: Effects on several measures of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston, Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Blvd, Suite B-1508, Houston, TX, 77058-1098, USA

    Kathryn E. Jaspers

  2. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Robert L. Williams, Christopher H. Skinner, David Cihak, R. Steve McCallum & Dennis J. Ciancio

Authors
  1. Kathryn E. Jaspers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert L. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher H. Skinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Cihak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Steve McCallum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dennis J. Ciancio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn E. Jaspers.

Appendix

Appendix

Integrity Checklist - Date:

Child’s Pseudonym:

____get child

____start watch once child is seated and ready to begin

____start stopwatch

____give child 18-item pretest over the previous day’s words

____stop stopwatch, record time

____score pretest and edit lists while child has short break

____complete first intervention*

____short break

____complete second intervention*

____stop watch and record total session time

*For CCC intervention:

  • ____start stopwatch

  • ____read each word three times

  • ____prompt covering, copying, comparing, if necessary

  • ____prompt correction, if necessary

  • ____after 6 min, stop the stopwatch, say “Stop”, and take worksheet

*For CCC + SD intervention:

  • ____start stopwatch

  • ____read each word, say sentence, say definition BEFORE child begins copying

  • ____prompt covering, copying, comparing, if necessary

  • ____prompt correction, if necessary

  • ____after 6 min, stop the stopwatch, say “Stop”, and take worksheet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jaspers, K.E., Williams, R.L., Skinner, C.H. et al. How and to What Extent Do Two Cover, Copy, and Compare Spelling Interventions Contribute to Spelling, Word Recognition, and Vocabulary Development?. J Behav Educ 21, 80–98 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9137-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9137-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation