J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170DOI 10.1007/s10864-006-9017-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Enhancing Spelling Performance in Studentswith Learning Disabilities

Keith A. Nies Phillip J. Belfiore

Published online: 11 August 2006C Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract The present study, using a single subject adapted alternating treatments design,compared the effects of two spelling strategies (cover, copy, compare, and copy-only) usedto enhance spelling performance in 2, third-grade students with learning disabilities. Thecover, copy compare (CCC) method required the students to say the word, point to the word,repeat the word, cover the word, print the word, compare the word to the correct model,and correct errors if necessary. The copy-only method required the students to say the word,point to the word, repeat the word, and print the word. Overall, the CCC strategy was moreeffective in words learned and words retained. Results are discussed in light of CCC requiringa self-evaluation/self-correction component not required in the more traditional method ofinstruction. By incorporating a simple, self-management component to spelling instruction,teachers may improve spelling performance in the classroom.

Keyword Error correction . Learning disabilities . Spelling . Cover-copy-compare .Self-evaluation

Spelling is an essential and complex skill involving multiple components, including visualmemory, phoneme-grapheme awareness, as well as, orthographic and morphophonemicknowledge (van Hell, Bosman, & Bartelings, 2003; Alber & Walshe, 2004). And, althoughimportant in connecting numerous components in a language arts curriculum, the repetitivepractice of mastering new spelling words has been characterized by teachers and students asboring, and one of the least favorite of the academic areas (Belfiore & Grskovic, 1996; Bos& Reitsma, 2003). The perception of spelling practices as un-attractive creates a potentiallycritical situation in the classroom, in that learning difficulties in spelling performance mayimpact (a) clarity in writing, (b) verb morphology, (c) writing fluency, (d) early readingdevelopment, (e) perceptions of writing ability, and (f) written expression (Alber & Walshe,

K. A. NiesFairview School District, Fairview, PA, USA

P. J. Belfiore ()Department of Education, Mercyhurst College, 501 East 38th Street, Erie, PA 16546e-mail: Belfiore@mercyhurst.edu

Springer

164 J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170

2004; Boynton Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Graham, Harris, & Fink-Chorzempa, 2003) toname just a few related academic skill areas.

This perception is further compounded when teachers on one hand seek to developstrategies that increase opportunities to respond and time on task, while being fearful thatrepetitive practices or difficult task assignments may result in increased escape from demandbehavior by students (Winterling, Dunlap, & ONeill, 1987; Roberts, Marshall, Nelson, &Albers, 2001). Teachers working with students with identified learning disabilities mustwalk a fine line between developing and implementing pedagogically sound methodologiesdesigned to overcome spelling deficits, while being careful to avoid excessive repetition thatmay decrease academic engagement with this essential academic subject material.

In response to this line teachers walk, Bos and Reitsma (2003) also caution that educatorsmust be wary of appealing strategies that may seem to motivate children, but do not have aresearch history or data-base for improving spelling performance. For example, Matz (1994)suggested oral spelling games, although fun and exciting ways to memorize, do little forlearning to spell effectively. Strategies for spelling must be motivating, as well as effectiveand efficient. One such strategy, cover-copy-compare (CCC), is a practical, research-basedmethod that has been shown to be effective across many academic areas. McLaughlin &Skinner (1996) define steps for CCC as (a) looking at the academic stimulus, (b) covering theacademic stimulus, (c) making an academic response, (d) uncovering the original academicstimulus, and (e) evaluating academic response in reference to the academic stimulus. Ifthe academic response is correct, students can move on to the next academic stimulus (e.g.,when a spelling word is written and checked as correct, move on to the next spelling word).If the academic response is incorrect, or there is no response, a correction of the error or noresponse is required by observing the correct model and making the necessary changes. Inaddition, van Hell, et al. (2003) characterizes CCC as part of visual-dictation training wheresuch instructional components as writing from memory, kinematics of writing, whole wordpractice, immediate feedback, and self-correction play significant roles in the effectiveness ofthe strategy. Immediate feedback provides cues to the learner following each response as tothe accuracy of the response (i.e., correct, incorrect, or no response), whereas self-correctionis only implemented if an error or no response occurs.

Cover-copy-compare has been employed with success across several academic subjectareas, including mathematics (Stading & Williams, 1996), geography (Skinner, Belfiore, &Pierce, 1992), and spelling (McLaughlin, Reiter, Mabee, & Byram, 1991). CCC has alsobeen shown to be effective with students identified as having behavior disorders (Skinner,et al., 1992), learning disabilities (Stading & Williams, 1996), and mild mental retardation(McLaughlin, et al., 1996).

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a CCC and copy-only strategyon the acquisition and retention of spelling words for two, 3rd-grade students identified withlearning disabilities. At the heart of the intervention comparison was the impact of immediateself-correction used as a component of the CCC strategy, but not of the copy-only strategy.

Methodology

Participants and setting

Two, 3rd-grade students (one boy, one girl) attending a pull-out learning support class-room for language arts participated in this study. Both students were identified as having alearning disability by the school districts special education department. Determination of

Springer

J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170 165

students educational needs was made by a team of educators and administrators, includingthe school psychologist. When major discrepancies, as defined by the school district, werenoted between IQ and achievement scores, each student qualified for the school districtsLearning Support program.

The two students spent the majority of the academic day in the general education class-room, which contained a total of 11 students. Each of the students was enrolled in thegeneral education curriculum for Science, Social Studies, Art, Music, and Physical Educa-tion. Both students also received daily 2-hour pull-out learning support for direct instructionin Language Arts and Mathematics. Each student was at least 2-years below grade level inreading, with greatest difficulties in decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension. Spellinginstruction was included as part of the Language Arts instruction. Prior classroom spellinginstructional activities included copying words multiple times, alphabetizing words, peer-tutoring, and unscrambling words.

Materials and experimental design

Spelling words used in this study were selected from the Trophies Harcourt Spelling 4thGrade (Harcourt, 2005) series. Each weekly word list contained a total of 12 spelling words,randomly divided into two sets of six words each.

Three different 12-word spelling lists were used over three weeks, one list per week, soeach word list represents one comparison of treatment per student. One set of six words wasassigned to the copy-only spelling method, and the other set of 6 words was assigned to thecover-copy-compare (CCC) spelling method. Both students used the same word lists. A totalof three word lists (36 total words) were used throughout this study, a new word list eachweek for three weeks. Each set of 12 word lists followed a basic spelling pattern as outlinedby the Harcourt (2005) spelling series (e.g. er, ar, or).

To assess the effects of the CCC and copy-only strategies, an adaptive alternating treatmentdesign (AATD) was used (Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985). An AATD requires (a) twoequivalent, yet functionally independent, sets of instructional items, with (b) each set taughtwith a different instructional strategy (Sindelar, et al., 1985). Intervention effectiveness isdemonstrated when acquisition on one set of spelling words is more rapid than acquisitionof the other set, and these effects are consistent across both students and each spelling list.

Procedures

Spelling assessment and instruction (both CCC and copy-only) was provided to both studentsfor 20-min during the morning language arts block (10:4012:30) five days a week for eachword list. In general, a daily session consisted of (a) a written assessment (i.e., spellingtest) of the 12 spelling words from that weeks list, followed by (b) the CCC and copy-onlyinstruction. The presentation order of CCC and copy-only instruction was counterbalanced,so that one strategy was not always offered first. This test-teach procedure (i.e., next day testprocedure) allows for a better measure of spelling word proficiency because assessment ofintervention effectiveness occurs 24-hours post-intervention/practice. Assessment occurredMonday through Friday for each word list, with a retention probe assessment the followingMonday. Instruction occurred Monday through Thursday, with no instruction following theFriday assessment.

Springer

166 J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170

Assessment

Each week, for three weeks, both students were introduced to a new list of 12 spellingwords. Students were given a black-lined 8 1/2 11 inch piece of paper. For each word onthe spelling list, the classroom teacher verbally presented the word, followed by the wordin a sentence, and then repeated the word (e.g. Dog. The dog ran down the hill. Dog).Each child was instructed to listen to the entire cue, and then write the word next to thecorresponding number on the black-lined paper. No specific spelling feedback was providedduring the daily assessment, although the teacher did provide general praise for staying withthe task and task compliance (e.g., Nice job working.). This assessment procedure wasrepeated each day prior to the two instructional strategies.

Intervention

Prior to the first day assessment, one half (six words) of the weekly spelling list of 12 wordswas assigned to the CCC condition, while the other six words were assigned to the copy-onlycondition. The copy-only spelling condition represented the strategy currently in place in theclassroom prior to this study, and all students in the class were competent and familiar withthis strategy.

Order of presentation for the CCC and copy-only procedure were counterbalanced. Ingeneral, across both interventions, the teacher verbally presented each word individuallyuntil each word was presented once per session.

The CCC strategy consisted of (a) the teacher saying the word as students point to theword on the paper, (b) the teacher saying the word as students point to and say the word, (c)the teacher saying the word as the students point to, say, cover (by folding over 1/2 the paperto cover the word), print/write, and then check word, and (d) the teacher saying the word asthe students point to, say, and spell the word. If during Step C. the student wrote the wordincorrectly, they would erase and correct the spelling. The copy-only strategy consisted of(a) the teacher saying the word as students point to the word on the paper, (b) the teachersaying the word as students point to and say the word, (c) the teacher saying the word as thestudents point to, say, and print the word, and (d) the teacher saying the word as the studentspoint to, say, and spell the word.

The teacher provided general verbal praise when students printed the word correctly inboth procedures (Step C.). Steps A., B., and D. were identical across both conditions.

Retention and student survey

The Monday following each Friday assessment, each student was again assessed on theprevious weeks 12-word spelling list. The procedure for this retention assessment wasidentical to the initial assessment described above. Following the retention test, studentswere assessed on the new spelling word list for that week. To assess student satisfactionwith the two strategies a questionnaire adapted from Grskovic and Belfiore (1996) was used.The questionnaire had five statements for students to answer yes/no. The questionnaire wasadministered on the final day of the study. The questionnaire is provided on Table 1.

Dependent measure, agreement, and procedural integrity

The total number of words written correctly in each condition on daily spelling assessmentsserved as the dependent measure. All daily spelling assessments were scored by the classroom

Springer

J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170 167

Table 1 Student survey (Answer choices are either YES or NO)

1. Learning spelling using the cover copy compare method is better than learning them the usual way2. I think I learn more when I correct my mistakes when I write my words (cover copy compare method)3. It takes too long to learn my spelling words using the cover copy compare method4. I am a better speller when I use the cover copy compare method5. I would like to try the cover copy compare method to learn other material in school

instructor (first author) and a second independent observer in the classroom. The secondobserver was either the second author or a teaching assistant assigned to the classroom.Agreement on the dependent variable, assessed across all word lists and both students, was100%. The use of a task analysis checklist was used to assess procedural integrity. Teacherantecedent cues and feedback were monitored with the checklist for 50% of the sessions,with integrity of procedures recorded at 100% for all steps of the checklist.

Results

Figure 1 shows the number of words spelled correctly for each student across three differentweekly spelling word lists (Monday through Friday assessment). The first data point foreach word list (Monday) represents the pretest, or single point of baseline. Sue showed themost improvement under the CCC condition, learning a total of 13 new words (an averageof 4.3 new words learned per week), while learning only 5 new words under the copy-onlycondition (an average of 1.7 new words learned per week). David also learned more newwords under the CCC condition, with a total of 9 (an average of 3.0 new words learned perweek), while only 6 new words were learned under the copy-only condition (an average of2.0 new words learned per week). Overall, from Monday to Friday, when using the CCCstrategy David and Sue acquired a total of 22 new spelling words learned (an average of 7.3new spelling words learned per week), and a total of only 11 new spelling words when usingthe copy-only strategy.

We also assessed words retained from the end test on Friday to the following Monday,when the next word list was introduced. Sue showed the most success under the CCCcondition, retaining 100% (13/13 words) of the words learned on Friday when given thefollowing Monday retention test. Under the copy-only condition Sue retained 80% of thetotal words learned (4/5 words). David also retained more words learned using CCC thancopy-only on the follow-up Monday test, retaining 88.9% (8/9 words) under CCC, and 50%(3/6 words) under copy-only. Overall, for both students and all three word lists, retention washigher under the CCC condition 95% (21/22 total words retained from Friday to followingMonday). The total percentage of words retained under the copy-only condition was 64%(7/11 total words retained).

The social validity of the two spelling methods was assessed by administering a ques-tionnaire with a yes or no format at the conclusion of the study. Both students circled yesfor all five question of the survey (See Table 1 for sample questions).

Discussion

Overall, for both students in this study, the CCC strategy was more effective in total wordslearned and total words retained than the copy-only strategy. In addition, when analyzing the

Springer

168 J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170

social validation surveys (See Table 1) both students preferred the CCC strategy. Interventioneffectiveness and intervention preference are two critical components when deciding onwhat instructional strategies to employ in the classroom. Evidence of effectiveness is critical,allowing teachers to use instructional time more wisely. Evidence of preference is also criticalif teachers seek to increase the likelihood students will remain motivated and engaged in theinstructional program. In addition, intervention effectiveness and preference play a role inminimizing the risk of escape from academic demand (Roberts, et al., 2001).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

# of

w

ord

s co

rrec

t

DAVID

Cover-Copy-Compare

Copy-only

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

# of

w

ord

s co

rrec

t

Word List 1 Word List W2 ord List 3

SUE

Fig. 1 Number of words spelled correctly using Cover-Copy-Compare and Copy-Only

Springer

J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170 169

At the heart of the CCC strategy, and the key comparison addressed in this research, isthe impact of self-evaluation (i.e., error-discrimination) and self-correction (i.e., responsemodification) on academic performance. Self-evaluation requires the student to comparesome topographical dimension of their behavior with a set standard or criterion (Belfiore& Hornyak, 1998). Self-correction may, or may not, be a component of self-evaluation.Whereas self-evaluation requires a discrimination be made between performance and somestandard/criterion, self-correction requires a modification of performance to more closelyapproximate the standard/criterion (Mace, Belfiore, & Hutchinson, 2001).

One small instructional variation occurred between the CCC and copy-only condition[Step C. the teacher saying the word as the students point to, say, cover (by folding over 1/2the paper to cover the word), print/write, and then check word], and it is suggested that thisvariation resulted in increases in spelling performance for both students, replicated acrossthree spelling word lists. During the CCC condition, after hearing and pointing to the targetword, students covered the target word, wrote the word (without viewing the target word),checked their written response to the written model, and corrected their response, if necessary,using the model as the correct guide. In the copy-only condition, after hearing and pointingto the target word, the students copied the word beside the written model (while viewingthe target word). During the copy-only condition students never (a) evaluated their workbecause the correct model was always present, nor (b) corrected mistakes because errorsnever occurred. Conversely, in the CCC condition, student responses were made withoutsimultaneously viewing the correct model. After each student response in CCC, the studentsuncovered the model, and had to discriminate if their response was accurate or inaccurate bycomparing letter sequences (their written word to the correct written model). When errorswere noted by the students, the students had to determine where the error was, what type oferror occurred, and make the necessary written correction. Anecdotal reports from the firstauthor, the classroom teacher, indicated that students made and corrected numerous errorsduring the CCC condition, especially early in the week.

Numerous studies report that errors and the immediacy of error correction seem to playa critical part in spelling accuracy (Alber & Walshe, 2004; Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996;Morton, Heward, & Alber, 1998; Vargas, Grskovic, Belfiore, Halbert-Ayala, 1997). In thisstudy, students acquired and retained more spelling words when they were instructed tocover the correct answer, write their answer, make a visual discrimination of accuracy (i.e.,self-evaluation), and if incorrect, correct the error immediately (i.e., self-correction). As asystematic procedure for error discrimination and self-correction, the CCC strategy, waseasily mastered by both students. When procedures for handling errors are in place, errorscan serve as an effective learning opportunity (Morton, et al., 1998).

At a time when educators and researchers are (a) asking for more effective spellinginstruction (e.g., Alber & Walshe, 2004; Ampaw-Farr, 2005; Graham, et al., 2003; Vargas,et al., 1997), (b) seeking solutions to the difficulties faced by students with learning disabilitiesin the areas of spelling (e.g., Boynton Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Darch, Kim, Johnson, &James, 2000; Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996), and (c) responding to federal requests for scientificresearch-based practice and response to intervention, the effectiveness and student preferenceof CCC seems to be one strategy worth pursuing.

References

Alber, S. R., & Walshe, S. E., (2004). When to self-correct spelling words: A systematic replication. Journalof Behavioral Education, 13, 124.

Ampaw-Farr, J. (2005). Spelling language. Literacy Today, March, 9.Springer

170 J Behav Educ (2006) 15:163170

Belfiore, P. J., & Hornyak, R. S., (1998). Operant theory and application to self-monitoring in adolescents.In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice(pp. 184202). NY: Guilford Press.

Bos, M., & Reitsma, P. (2003). Experienced teachers expectations about the potential effectiveness of spellingexercises. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 104127.

Boynton Hauerwas, L., & Walker, J. (2003). Spelling on inflected verb morphology in children with spellingdeficits. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 22535.

Darch, C., Kim, S., Johnson, S., & James, H. (2000). The strategic spelling skills of students with learningdisabilities: The results of two studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 1526.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. (2003). Extra spelling instruction: Promoting better spelling,writing, and reading performance right from the start. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 6668.

Grskovic, J. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving the spelling performance of students with disabilities.Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 343354.

Harcourt (2005). Trophies harcourt spelling, 4th grade. Chicago: Harcourt Incorporated.Mace, F. C., Belfiore, P. J., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2001). Operant theory and research on self-regulation. In

B. Zimmerman, & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 3966).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Matz, K. A. (1994). 10 things they never taught us about teaching spelling. Education Digest, 9, 7072.McLaughlin, T. F., Reiter, S. M., Mabee, W. S., & Byram, B. (1991). An analysis and replication of the

add-a-word spelling program with mildly handicapped middle school students. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 1, 413426.

McLaughlin, T. F., & Skinner, C. H., (1996). Improving academic performance through self-management:Cover, copy, and compare. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 113119.

Morton, W. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R. (1998). When to self correct?: A comparison of two procedureson spelling performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 321336.

Roberts, M. L., Marshall, J., Nelson, J. R., & Albers, C. A. (2001). Curriculum-based assessment proceduresembedded within functional behavioral assessments: Identifying escape-motivated behaviors in a generaleducation classroom. School Psychology Review, 30, 264277.

Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatment design forinstructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 6776.

Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Pierce, N. L. (1992). Cover, copy, and compare: Increasing geographyaccuracy in students with behavior disorders. School Psychology Review, 21, 7381.

Stading, M., & Williams, R. L. (1996). Effects of a cover, copy, and compare procedure on multiplicationfacts mastery with a third grade girl with learning disabilities in a home setting. Education and Treatmentof Children, 19, 425435.

van Hell, J. G., Bosman, M. T., & Bartelings, M. (2003). Visual dictation improves the spelling performanceof three groups of Dutch students with spelling disorders. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 329355.

Vargas, A. U., Grskovic, J. A., Belfiore, P. J., & Halbert-Ayala, J. (1997). Improving migrant students spellingof English and Spanish words with error correction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 1323.

Winterling, V., Dunlap, G., & ONeill, R. E. (1987). The influence of task variation on the aberrant behaviorof autistic students. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 105119.

Springer

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?) /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice