INCREASING ENGLISH VOCABULARY USING ‘COVER COPY COMPARE -

DEFINITION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – SENTENCE BUILDING (CCC-DA+SB)’ METHOD

AMONG PRIMARY LEVEL 2 STUDENTS

HEERASHINI A/P SUBRAMANIAM

SK ST Francis Xavier, Keningau

ABSTRACT

Vocabulary has been one of the important skills in learning English as it is known to increase
students’ ability to spell and know the meaning of words besides to have clear understanding in
reading or writing. Cover copy compare is a self-managed intervention that relies on modelling,
opportunities to respond, and corrective feedback to improve spelling. Therefore two refinements have
been done to enhance students ability to define meaning of words, which is DA (Definition
acknowledgment) and SB (Sentence building). This research study examines the effects of cover-
copy-compare method in increasing primary level 2 students’ English vocabulary by adding 2
refinements which has been stated above. A quantitative study focuses on Lewin’s action research
model has been used involving 80 primary level 2 students in year 6. Students progress and
achievement were observed using pretest, post-test and observation method. Test result showed visible
increase in vocabulary words learning and usage among these students in essay writing.

Keywords: Self-managed intervention, refinements, cover copy compare, vocabulary, definition

acknowledgement, sentence building
INTRODUCTION

Cover-copy-compare (CCC) is a self-managed spelling intervention with components of modeling,

self-correction, and immediate feedback that has been shown to teach students to spell more
accurately than students who are taught using traditional spelling instruction (Alber &
Walshe, 2004). CCC method is being used by students looking at a word, study it, then cover it up and
try to spell or write the word without looking at it. They then uncover the word if they have spelled or
written the word correctly. If they spell the word correctly, they can move to the next word and if not,
they should repeat the process until they can spell and write the word correctly. In this context, two
refinements has been added to improve students vocabulary learning which is definition
acknowledgement (DA) and sentence buiding (BD). It was done to harness students’ writing skills in
English as they are moving into secondary school English learning soon.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Despite the importance of vocabulary for reading and writing, studies have revealed that students
show significant weaknesses in this skill (Clements, K., & Gormley, K. 2012). Researcher is an
English teacher in one of TS 25 school in Keningau, Sabah. Observation by researcher revealed that
students often use short, low-level words (level 1 English) in their essays. Though textbooks has been
providing lots of new glossaries, students are reluctant to go through and use them in their reading or
writing. It shows that vocabulary has been their main weakness in English.

It has been known that vocabulary plays important role in understanding reading
comprehension. Most researchers in education believe that vocabulary learning and reading
comprehension are highly corelated and many studies have shown strong relationship between these
two. Some have indicated it may even be as much as 75% of the equation. For instance, if we don’t
understand the meaning of 2 mere words from a reading comprehension, we might move away from
the overall understanding or the detailed part of the passage. Even in novel, we might slip away from
understanding author’s opinion or the joy of reading. Understanding the meaning of words involves
understanding not only common words, but multiple meanings given that one word can have many
meanings, nuances, figures of speech, emotions, borrowed words from other languages and so on. A
strong vocabulary has been connected with overall reading proficiency and ability to distinguish
different meaning in context with the passage given. Realizing the importance of vocabulary in
enhancing reading proficiency, researcher has done this experiment to tackle students ability in
English.

Apart from reading, a strong vocabulary is key point in writing. In fact it goes without a
saying that a well developed vocabulary can be the difference between a good essay and vice versa.
Vocabulary can help students to understand complex concept and apply in their writing. Based on
researcher’s observation during English lesson, students barely can use minimum or basic vocabulary
for their year 6 level proficiency. This shows that students are lacking in vocabulary and even
struggling to put them into words during essay writing. Thus, researcher determined to enhance
students vocabulary besides tackle their writing their skills.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

This study was conducted to enhance students’ vocabulary skills in English proficiency skills
involving reading and writing through cover copy compare method (CCC). CCC is a self-study
method used to help students to improve their spelling and vocabulary, maths, sight word recognition,
science and foreign language learning (Carter, Wong & Mayton, 2013). CCC involves three main
steps which is stimulus to be mastered. This can be done by asking students to look at the stimulus
such as written word, mathematic problem with an answer or an another item relevant to the topic.
Second, the student covers stimulus step one and makes a response either orally or in written form.
Usually a worksheet will be used to aid students in this step, Third, student compare the original
answers with the actual answer given (Skinner, McLaughlin, & Logan, 1997, p. 296). Whether an
additional step is required is depends on the response. If correct, the student repeat with next stimulus.
If there is a mistake, a redo process begin or student engage in another type of practice.

While this is considered to be the traditional and original method of CCC , this study involves
2 additional refinements which is Definition Acknowledgement (DA) and sentence building (SB).
This was done using additional column in original CCC worksheet for students to write words
meaning and build sentence to define the meaning of the word correctly. These refinements were
necessary given that sample of study were level 2 students who are lacking in English vocabulary.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on CCC has been conducted on many different learning environment and age groups.
Darrow, McLaughlin, Derby, & Johnson, 2012; Erion, Davenport, Rodax, Scholl, & Hardy, (2009)
study shows that elementary students have improved spelling of sight words and vocabularies.
Meanwhile, Carlo (2004) conducted CCC method experiment among fifth grade students and found
that they learned 10 to 12 target words each week over 15 weeks. His experiment also proved that
students’ reading comprehension skills increased to 80% when provided with CCC worksheet and its
approach. This shows that improved vocabulary increasing reading comprehension among students.
Carte et al. (2013) experiment on 15-year-old students with learning deficiency who learned 15 new
words over the course of one week in three 25-minute period proved that CCC method is one of the
strategies where participants can track their own progress, identify their mistakes thus being able to
correct them on their own. Apart from reading skills, CCC method has also been conducted in
improving writing skills. This was done by adding some refinements to harness the skill. An
experiment conducted by Jaspers et a. (2012) and Manfred (2015) shows that by adding extra
activities during conventional CCC method which is Sentence Definition (SD), participants who were
10-year-old students with learning deficiency were able to write a basic comprehensive essay. In
addition, Skarr et al (2012) and Murphy et al. (1990) found that CCC strategy helped to improve
spelling together with complementation of writing skills. Besides, it also allows the learner to gain
mastery writing fluency. Obviously, it has been proven that CCC method has improved students
reading comprehension and writing skills and is suitable among all ages. It also outlines that teachers
who have used CCC method before wouldn’t require much of learning curve when executing it. Its
because students must practice the words until they reach 100% accuracy which ensures they learn the
information. Moreover, this strategy has also been easy for implementation among teachers.

While most of the experiments proved the effectiveness of CCC method, Membrey,
McLaughin, Deby and Antcliff’s (2021) study revealed that by adding few steps to CCC can increase
its effectiveness. Although the researchers found that all three students improved after implementation
of CCC, for one student, the researchers added copying and spelling out loud to the procedure.
Following the modification, the student scored perfect scores on the last three spelling tests. In
contrast, Carter, Wong, and Mayton (2013) studied the use of CCC in a Spanish class by a 15-year-old
student diagnosed with a learning disability. However, the focus of this study was on reading and
translation, not spelling. CCC has been shown to be “effective for increasing performance across
curricula, settings, and subjects” (Skinner, McLaughlin, & Logan, 1997, p. 296), but the research
currently lacks data to support its effectiveness with EFL students. This study fills this gap by testing
the effects of CCC on EFL students. Hence, previous studies have shown that CCC method has
increased student’s proficiency in various group of ages with or without adding refinements. Thus,
researcher determined to use this method to increase students reading and writing proficiency by
adding two refinements, which is definition acknowledgement and sentence building.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1.Are there statistically significant differences at (p<0.05) in the total average score of pre and post
test among students if cover copy compare (CCC) group and the assign and test group in reading
proficiency?

2. Are there statistically significant differences at (p<0.05) in the total average score of pre and post
test among students if cover copy compare (CCC) group and the assign and test group in writing
proficiency?
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The significance of the study emanated from the following reasons:

First, the study addressed some gaps in the research literature on the methods of teaching English as
second language specifically in reading and writing skills.

Second, no data exist regarding the use of the CCC method and adding new refinement which is
Definition Acknowledgement (DA) and Sentence Building (SB).

Third, little research has investigated the usage of CCC method as a self and class wide intervention
strategy to improve accuracy vocabulary in order to harness reading and writing skill among Sabah
students.

Fourth, the findings could benefit students, English teachers, administrators, and curricular designers
since it provides self-managed strategy which is practical in terms of money and time and could be
used either as a learning or teaching method.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This research used quantitative approach where a quasi- experimental design were included to test to
test students improvement in CCC+DA+SB method against conventional assign and test method. To
test the variables, researcher used pre -post test to gather and analyse data about increase in the correct
number of reading and writing of words and sentences. SPSS 24 software were used to analyse data
and conclusion were made based on this.

Participants and setting

This study took place in an English as second Language primary school classroom in Keningau,
Sabah. This study was conducted among 40 level 2 students who had studied English prior to entering
the school, but a spectrum of ability level existed within the class. Using the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), students ability level ranged from “Pre A1” (Pre-
Elementary) to B1 (Intermediate). Students were given pre test in spelling. Then, they were divided
into experimental and control group. Experimental group will be undergoing CCC+DA+SB (Cover
Copy Compare + Definition Acknowledgement + Sentence Building) while control groups will be
studying in assign and test method. Each session consist of 30 minutes lesson, 5 class period per
week, and were conducted for one month.
Data collection

Researcher used pre and post test to gather data for this experiment. A test paper consist of words
learned throughout the syllabus asking for meaning and sentence building were given to all students.
The result was collected. The test paper consist of 15 questions where students were required to fill in
meaning and build sentence defining the meaning. The same test repeated after one month among
both group and the result was collected for analysis.

Data analysis

An SPSS 24 software was used to analyze the difference between the marks obtained by students in
both tests before and after one month. To test whether there is significant difference between control
and experimental group in their achievement, an independent sample t-test and a paired sample t-test
were conducted. The analysis data was used to make conclusion and further actions.
RESULT

The researcher has set a hypothesis for this experiment as below.

Ho1: There is no significant difference between control and experimental group in their achievement
of vocabulary increase, definition acknowledgement and sentence building.

To test the hypothesis, the researcher did an independent sample t-test. The result is shown in figure 1.

Group Statistics
GROUP N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
DIFFERENCE4 Control 20 1.1000 .78807 .17622
Experiment 20 7.9000 1.65116 .36921

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Sig. Interval of the
(2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
DIFFERENCE4 Equal 15.800 .000 - 38 .000 -6.80000 .40911 - -
variances 16.622 7.62819 5.97181
assumed
Equal - 27.229 .000 -6.80000 .40911 - -
variances 16.622 7.63909 5.96091
not
assumed

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the result of independent sample t test of control and experimental group. The test
result shows that there is a significant difference between the scores of control and experimental
group where the p value is less than 0.05, which is 0.000. So, the researcher rejected null hypothesis
in this experiment. Thus, the mean of experimental group is higher than control group proves that the
cover-copy-compare + DA+ SB method is effective in improving students’ vocabulary, definition
acknowledgement and sentence building.
Second, the researcher wanted to test whether there is significant difference between pre -post test
within control and experimental group. A null hypothesis has been set to test this statement as below.

Ho2: There is no significant difference between pre-post-test within control and treatment group.

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 PRETEST 3.93 40 1.655 .262
POSTTEST 6.40 40 2.416 .382

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 PRETEST & POSTTEST 40 .624 .000

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair PRETEST - -2.475 1.894 .300 -3.081 -1.869 -8.263 39 .000
1 POSTTEST

Figure 2

Figure 2 shows the result of paired sample test that was conducted to identify whether there is
significant difference between control and experimental group in their pre-post-test. The mean of post
test is higher than pre test which is 6.40. Meanwhile, both pre-post test is positively correlated which
is 0.624. Apart from that, there is a significant difference between both groups in their pre-post test
where the p value is less than 0.05, which is 0.000. Hence, researcher had to reject the null hypothesis.
DISCUSSION

Based on the analysis result, it is proven that the CCC+DA+ SB (Cover-Copy-Compare + Definition
Acknowledgement + Sentence Building) method has improved students vocabulary, sentence building
and also definition acknowledgement. While a basic CCC method is used in improving vocabulary,
additional refinements can be inserted to improve sentence building and also students writing skills.
This is coherent to Albert & Walshe (2014) statement where students can make self-correction in this
strategy and it provides feedback for them when they compare a misspelled word to a model. Error
self correction has shown to be effective across disability levels with different level of students
(Wirtz, 2019). The repeated practice strategy consisted of students copying a word several times with
definition and also building sentences allowed them to instil the word in their memory for long time.

Cover, copy, and compare is an academic intervention that has been shown to be effective at
increasing students’ accuracy and fluency, as well as in maintaining academic skills across students,
curricular objectives, and settings (Skinner, McLaughlin, & Logan, 1997). Students using CCC+ DA+
SB have multiple opportunities to respond to the presented stimuli and practice immediate error self-
correction when checking their answers to given stimuli. The strategy is simple and efficient, provides
discrete learning trials for students and can be customized according to students’ level of
understanding and learning speed.

CONCLUSION

The study was designed to determine the effectiveness of added refinements in existing cover copy
compare method which is definition acknowledgement and sentence building. The results indicate that
the CCC +DA+ SB intervention was effective in increasing students’ vocabulary and sentence
building. Thus, the added refinements is highly recommended as an effective intervention to improve
multiple language skills among level 2 primary students and can be modified according to teachers’
preference such as students’ background, learning ability, classroom settings, topics and stimuli and so
on.
REFERENCES

Alber, S. R. & Walshe, S. E. (2014). When to self-correct spelling words: A systematic replication.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(1), 51-66.
Burks, M. (2004). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the number of words spelled correctly by
students with LD. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(5), 301-304.
Cates, G. L., Dunne, M., Erkfritz, K. N., Kivisto, A., Lee, N., & Wierzbicki, J. (2016). Differential
effects of two spelling procedures on acquisition, maintenance, and adaption to reading.
Journal
of Behavioral Education, 16, 71-82.
Cieslar, W., McLaughlin, T. F., & Derby, K. M. (2008). Effects of the copy, cover, and compare
procedure on the math and spelling performance of a high school student with behavioral
disorder: A case report. Preventing School Failure, 52(4), 45-51.
Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2017). Comparing
mathematics interventions: Does initial level of fluency predict intervention effectiveness?
Journal of School Psychology, 45, 603-617.
Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2017). Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). New Jersey:
Pearson
Education, Inc.
Darch, C., Kim, S., Johnson, S., & James, H. (2000). The strategic spelling skills of students with
learning disabilities: The results of two studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1),
15-27. Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction? Journal
of
Educational Psychology, 92(2), 235-247.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the
spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669-
686.
Grskovic, J. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving the spelling performance of students with
disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6(3), 343-354.
Stone, S., McLaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. P. (2002). The use and evaluation of copy, cover, and
compare
with rewards and a flash cards procedure with rewards on division math facts mastery with a
fourth grade girl in a home setting. International Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 82-91.
Topping, K. J. (1995). Cued spelling: A powerful technique for parent and peer tutoring. The Reading
Teacher, 48(5), 374-383.
Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D., & Fredrick, L. (2007). Error self-correction and spelling: Improving the
 spelling accuracy of secondary students with disabilities in written expression. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 16, 291-301.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E. A., Edmonds, M., & Kim, A. (2006). A synthesis of
spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with
LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 528-543.
Wirtz, C. L., Gardner, R., Weber, K., & Bullara, D. (1996). Using self-correction to improve the
spelling
performance of low-achieving third graders. Remedial & Special Education, 17(1), 48-58.

ATTACHMENTS

PRE-POST TEST

No Word Meaning Sentence

1 Yoke

2 Sediments

3 Palaeontologist

4 Spectacular

5 Trot

6 Chatter

7 Puddle

8 Strewn

9 Frazzle

10 Snug

11 Bid

12 Dainty

13 Enchanted

14 Grant
 15 Folks

Worksheet: Cover-Copy-Compare+DA+SB

No Spelling words Response Definition Sentence

a) a)
1
b) b)

a) a)
2
b) b)

a) a)
3
b) b)

a) a)
4
b) b)

a) a)
5
b) b)

a) a)
6
b) b)

a) a)
7
b) b)

a) a)
8
b) b)

a) a)
9
b) b)

a) a)
10
b) b)