The Effects of Cover Copy
Compare vs. Copy Only on
Student Achievement in Spelling
Elizabeth Marie McCarthy
Valdosta State University
Introduction
• Problem: Two second grade students with a
disability are scoring significantly below peers
on weekly spelling tests.
• Some students may find it difficult to apply the
skills associated with spelling without explicit
spelling instruction (Darch, Kim, Johnson, &
James, 2000).
Literature Review
• Darch, Kim, Johnson, & James (2000) stated, “Although most
students with learning disabilities have difficulty with all forms of
written expression, spelling problems rank as some of the most
difficult to remediate and are common” (p. 15).
• Strategies which involve the student self correcting errors in
misspelled words are prevalent and different variations have proven
to increase student achievement in spelling (Wirtz & Gardner, 1996;
Nies & Belifiore, 2006; Darch et al., 2000; Wanzek, Vaughn, Wexler,
Swanson, Edmonds, and Kim, 2006).
• Darch et al. (2000) found that “…students with learning disabilities
have strategy deficits” (p. 21) and rule-based programs “…with
specified corrections and practice are more effective for children
with learning disabilities” (p. 25).
Purpose
• The purpose of this study was to compare the
effectiveness of instruction using selfcorrection and the traditional copy-only
strategy in spelling on student achievement
with students having a disability.
• Research Question: Is the self-correction
method more effective for student achievement
than copy-only with spelling instruction?
Participants
Student A:
• African American Male
• Second Grade
• Emotional Behavioral
Disorder
• Nine years old
Student B:
• Caucasian Male
• Second Grade
• OHI (Cerebral Palsy)
• Eight years old
Method
• Experimental design: Alternating Treatment
• Setting: Small conference room in the library
of the elementary school the students attend.
• Materials: handwriting paper for each method,
assessment sheets, and pencils.
Method: Dependent Variable
CCC and Copy-Only were implemented for three consecutive
days and assessment was recorded on the fourth day.
For each method a set of 6 spelling words were used containing
two words from each category; silent -e ending, an –ed ending,
and a –ied ending.
After 3 assessments were given comparing CCC and Copy- Only
the most effective method was taught and assessed alone for 3
sessions over 3 days. Each assessment contained 6 words each
which were misspelled during the comparison intervention
phase.
Following the most effective method, 2 assessments with six
different words each were given using words which students
spelled correctly during the first 6 intervention assessments to
determine maintenance .
Method: IOA
• The interobserver agreement proved to be 100
percent for each observation because the data was
collected based on a written assessment of words
spelled correctly.
• The average score and range calculated during
baseline was 0 words correct.
• The average score calculated during intervention for
CCC was 4.25 words correct with a range of 4,5.
• The average score calculated during intervention for
Copy-Only was 1.25 words correct with a range of
1,2.
Method: Procedural Integrity
• The procedural integrity measures went from
97 percent at baseline to 98 percent and then
100 percent on intervention.
Procedures for Baseline
• A list of 60 high-frequency spelling words having the silent -e, -ed ending,
and –ied ending which the students have been observed as not knowing the
correct spelling was selected for baseline assessment. Baseline procedures
were as follows:
(a) the teacher said the word, said the word in a sentence, and said the
word again
(b) the student printed the word
(c) when 36 common words were misspelled by both students the teacher
terminated the assessment of baseline words.
(d) The baseline data was calculated as the percent of words correct of
words assessed when the baseline assessment was terminated.
• The 36 words assessed during baseline were followed by the intervention in
sets of 12 words for each intervention session; 6 for CCC and 6 for copyonly.
Procedures for Cover, Copy, Compare
(a) the teacher said the word as the students pointed to the
word on the paper
(b) the teacher said the word as the students pointed to and
said the word
(c) the teacher said the word as the students pointed to, said,
and spelled the word.
(d) the teacher said the word as the students were instructed to
“take a picture of the word” (capture a mental image of the
word), cover the word, and print the word.
(e) the student checked the word and erased and reprinted the
word again if he spelled the word incorrectly
Procedures for Copy-Only
(a) the teacher said the word as students pointed to
the word on the paper
(b) the teacher said the word as students pointed to
and said the word
(c) the teacher said the word as the students pointed
to, said, and spelled the word aloud.
(d) the students copied the spelling word two times.
Procedures for Assessment
(a) the teacher said the word, said the word
in a sentence, and said the word again
(b) the student printed the word
Results
The Effects of Cover Copy Compare vs. Copy Only on Spelling Achievement with Student A
6
5
Most Effective
Method (CCC)
Maintenance
4
Words Correct
CCC
3
2
1
Copy-only
Baseline
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Assessment
7
8
9
10
11
Results
The Effects of Cover Copy Compare vs. Copy Only on Spelling Achievement with Student B
6
Most Effective
Method (CCC)
5
Maintenance
CCC
Words Correct
4
3
2
Copy-only
1
Baseline
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Assessment
7
8
9
10
11
Implications for Teachers
• Integrating a method such as Cover, Copy, Compare
involving self-correction into spelling instruction
increases student performance for assessment and
precedes student maintenance of learned words.
• Using the same materials and time a student can
engage in a more meaningful strategy for
achievement through the immediate feedback and
simulation of the assessment experience provided
through the Cover, Copy, Compare method.
References
Darch, C., Kim, S., Johnson, S., & James, H. (2000, March). The strategic spelling skills of students
with learning disabilities: the results of two studies. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 27(1), 15. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search
Complete database from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=15&sid=cd95357d-5e4c-49b9-954fd5083440e444%40sessionmgr7.
Nies, K. & Belfiore, P. (2006, September). Enhancing spelling performance in students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15(3), 162-169. Retrieved
September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Complete database from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=15&sid=cd95357d-5e4c-49b9-954fd5083440e444%40sessionmgr7.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E., Edmonds, M., & Kim, A. (2006, November). A
synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling
outcomes of students with ld. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Retrieved September
23, 2007, from Academic Search Complete database from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=4&sid=cd95357d-5e4c-49b9-954fd5083440e444%40sessionmgr7.
Wirtz, C. & Gardner III, R. (1996, January). Using self-correction to improve the spelling
performance of low-achieving third graders. Remedial & Special Education, 17(1), 48.
Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Complete database from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=16&sid=cd95357d-5e4c-49b9-954fd5083440e444%40sessionmgr7.