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

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.

A Comparison of Taped-Problem Interventions to Increase Math Fact Fluency: Does the Length of Time Delay Affect Student Learning Rates?

“…However, DCPM data for Set A continued to increase as the 2-s delay condition was removed and applied to Set C, which may be due to an undetected threat such as multiple treatment interference. When examining instructional time, previous intervention researchers have compared interventions by either holding constant the time spent in each intervention session for the same number of sessions (e.g., 8 min in each intervention; e.g., Jaspers et al, 2012) or holding constant the opportunities to respond and number of sessions then correcting for efficiency in calculations (e.g., . In this study, a third option for equating instruction time was developed that has not yet been used in learning rate research: controlling for opportunities to respond, allowing session lengths to vary, and providing additional sessions in the more efficient intervention in order to provide the same amount of overall learning time.…”

The Efficiency of Briefly Presenting Word Forms in a Computerized Repeated Spelling Training

“…This type of training appeared to be more efficient than copying words for third graders with spelling difficulties (Cates et al, 2007;Nies & Belfiore, 2006). These studies, however, were based on very small samples, and other studies that supported the efficiency of cover-copy-compare approaches only used a control group that spelled words without receiving feedback (Erion, Davenport, Rodax, Scholl, & Hardy, 2009;Jaspers et al, 2012).…”

Specific Instruction to Improve Orthographic Performance: An Intervention Programs Review

“…Los resultados indican que aumentar el número de veces que se repite la palabra no incrementa el aprendizaje, y que los componentes centrales del programa son la autoevaluación y la autocorrección. Jaspers et al (2012) toman el mismo programa (CCC) e implementa una tarea más (CCC + SD), que es la lectura por parte del experimentador de una breve definición de la palabra, y luego su utilización en una oración, con el objetivo de determinar si esta inclusión mejora la ortografía, incluyendo también en el estudio el incremento en la precisión de la lectura y el vocabulario en escolares de primer grado. Los resultados muestran la validez del programa CCC en la mejora de la ortografía; sin embargo, la inclusión de definiciones y el uso de las palabras en una frase no mejoran la precisión de la ortografía, ya que no se encuentran diferencias a nivel del vocabulario y la lectura de palabras.…”