Effective spelling is a foundational literacy skill, yet many students struggle to master it. Educators are continuously seeking the most effective strategies to improve spelling accuracy and acquisition. Among self-managed interventions, the Cover-Copy-Compare (CCC) method has emerged as a promising technique. This article delves into a detailed Compare Spelling analysis of CCC and its refined version, Cover-Copy-Compare with Sounding Out (CCC+SO). We will explore the effectiveness of each method, drawing on research to understand which approach might be more beneficial for students aiming to enhance their spelling skills. This comprehensive comparison aims to provide educators and researchers with valuable insights into optimizing spelling instruction.
Understanding the Cover-Copy-Compare (CCC) Method
The Cover-Copy-Compare (CCC) method is a straightforward, self-directed spelling intervention designed to enhance spelling accuracy through modeling, self-correction, and immediate feedback. In the CCC process, a student initially examines a correctly spelled word, focusing on its visual representation. They then conceal the word and attempt to write it from memory. Finally, they uncover the original word and compare spelling attempts against the model. If the student’s spelling is accurate, they proceed to the next word. If an error is detected, they repeat the CCC process for that specific word until correct spelling is achieved.
The CCC method boasts several advantages that make it a practical and effective choice for spelling instruction. Firstly, its simplicity means teachers require minimal specialized training or resources to implement it. This ease of use allows students to dedicate more time to actual learning rather than getting bogged down with complex procedures. Secondly, CCC promotes student autonomy. Once trained, students can independently manage the entire intervention, making it ideal for both classroom and home settings. This self-management aspect saves valuable teacher time and fosters student responsibility. Lastly, the self-correction component in CCC is particularly beneficial. By requiring students to actively identify and correct their own spelling mistakes, it reinforces accurate spelling patterns and increases the likelihood of future correct responses. This active engagement in error correction is considered more impactful than passive, teacher-directed correction methods. High accuracy rates, fostered by methods like CCC, are directly linked to improved learning outcomes.
Introducing Cover-Copy-Compare with Sounding Out (CCC+SO)
To further enhance the efficacy of the traditional Cover-Copy-Compare method, researchers have explored various refinements. One notable adaptation is the Cover-Copy-Compare with Sounding Out (CCC+SO) technique. This method builds upon the core principles of CCC by incorporating a phonological element. In CCC+SO, students not only visually study the word but also explicitly sound it out, phoneme by phoneme, before concealing it and attempting to spell. This addition aims to strengthen the connection between phonemes (sounds) and graphemes (letters), which is crucial for effective spelling, particularly for words with regular phonetic patterns.
The rationale behind CCC+SO lies in the well-established link between reading and spelling. Strong reading skills often correlate with strong spelling abilities, as both rely on understanding the alphabetic principle. By explicitly sounding out words during the spelling process, CCC+SO reinforces this connection, potentially making spelling more accessible and effective, especially for struggling spellers. This method leverages foundational phonics skills that students typically begin learning in kindergarten, making it a developmentally appropriate and potentially powerful tool to compare spelling acquisition against methods that are purely visual.
Research Study: Comparing CCC and CCC+SO Effectiveness
To rigorously compare spelling outcomes using CCC and CCC+SO, a research study was conducted employing an alternating-treatments design. This design allowed for a direct comparison of the two methods within the same participants. The study aimed to address some methodological limitations of previous research in this area, ensuring a more robust and reliable comparison.
Participants and Setting
The study involved three elementary school students – Angela, Bobby, and Stephanie – from suburban schools in the Midwestern United States. These participants were selected based on screening assessments that confirmed they had below-average spelling skills for their age and grade levels, as measured by the Test of Written Spelling, Fifth Edition (TWS-5). They also demonstrated adequate phonics skills, being able to correctly identify the most common sounds for the majority of letters in the alphabet. This phonics proficiency was essential for the CCC+SO intervention. Table 1 provides demographic details of the participants.
Table 1. Participant demographic information
| Participant | Age | Grade | Race/Ethnicity | Native Language | FRL | Disability | School |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angela | 8 | 2 | Caucasian | English | No | SLI | Western |
| Bobby | 7 | 2 | Caucasian | English | No | SLD | Western |
| Stephanie | 8 | 3 | Caucasian | English | Yes | None | Eastern |
FRL free/reduced lunch, SLI speech or language impairment, SLD specific learning disability
The interventions took place in private settings within the students’ schools, Eastern Elementary and Western Elementary. These schools serve diverse student populations, with varying percentages of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch and representing different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Methodology and Procedure
Prior to the intervention, pretesting was conducted to identify words that were unknown to each participant. Word lists were created based on the school curricula and included decodable words with various phonetic patterns. These unknown words were then randomly divided into two sets, one for the CCC condition and one for the CCC+SO condition. Efforts were made to ensure the word lists were comparable in difficulty, primarily by matching words based on length.
The study employed an alternating-treatments design to compare spelling acquisition under both CCC and CCC+SO conditions. Baseline data were collected initially to establish the students’ spelling performance without intervention. Following baseline, participants received training in both CCC and CCC+SO procedures using simple, phonetically regular words.
During intervention sessions, students practiced spelling words using either CCC or CCC+SO, with the order of conditions randomized daily. In CCC sessions, students visually studied the word, covered it, wrote it, and then compared their spelling to the correct model. In CCC+SO sessions, an additional step was added: students vocally sounded out the word before covering it. Interventionists closely monitored sessions to ensure participants adhered to the correct procedures, including refraining from sounding out in the CCC condition and correctly sounding out in the CCC+SO condition.
Spelling accuracy was measured using short-term and long-term retention tests. Short-term tests, administered daily, assessed the words currently being practiced. Long-term tests, given weekly, assessed previously mastered words to evaluate maintenance. The primary dependent variable was the cumulative number of words mastered, defined as spelling a word correctly in three consecutive short-term retention tests. Incorrect responses during intervention sessions were also recorded to analyze error patterns in each condition. Interobserver agreement and treatment integrity were rigorously monitored to ensure data reliability and procedural fidelity.
Results of the Study
The results of the study provided valuable data to compare spelling outcomes under CCC and CCC+SO conditions.
Short-Term Retention Tests
Figure 1 illustrates the cumulative number of spelling words mastered by each participant in both CCC and CCC+SO conditions. During the baseline phase, minimal word mastery occurred. However, once interventions were introduced, all participants showed significant growth in the number of words mastered in both conditions.
For Angela, the data initially showed similar progress in both CCC and CCC+SO. However, as the intervention progressed, a slight divergence emerged, with CCC+SO showing a trend toward faster acquisition, resulting in mastering four more words in CCC+SO overall. Bobby’s performance, in contrast, demonstrated remarkably similar progress in both conditions throughout the intervention, with no discernible difference in cumulative words mastered. Stephanie’s results mirrored Angela’s to some extent. Initially, her progress was comparable across conditions, but after approximately ten intervention days, CCC+SO showed a slightly steeper learning curve, leading to four more words mastered in CCC+SO compared to CCC.
Fig. 1. Cumulative number of words mastered in CCC and CCC+SO by participant
Cumulative number of words mastered in CCC (black squares) and CCC+SO (white circles) by participant; BL = baseline; INT = intervention
Long-Term Retention Tests
Long-term retention test results, depicted in Figure 2, indicated consistently high levels of spelling accuracy for previously mastered words across both conditions. The average percentage of correctly spelled words in long-term retention tests ranged from 80% to 94%. Overall, there was no substantial difference in long-term retention between CCC and CCC+SO for Bobby and Stephanie. Angela, however, showed a slightly higher mean percentage accuracy for words mastered in CCC+SO compared to CCC, suggesting a potential marginal benefit of sounding out for long-term retention in her case.
Fig. 2. Mean percentage accuracy on long-term retention tests
Fig. 2Mean percentage accuracy on long-term retention tests overall (black), with CCC (gray), and with CCC+SO (white) by participant
Incorrect Responses
Analysis of incorrect responses during intervention sessions revealed varied patterns across participants. Angela made considerably more errors in CCC than in CCC+SO. Bobby showed a nearly equal number of errors in both conditions. Stephanie, surprisingly, exhibited more errors in CCC+SO than in CCC. These error patterns offer further nuance when we compare spelling processes in each method.
Discussion
This study aimed to compare spelling outcomes of CCC and CCC+SO, addressing methodological limitations of prior research. The findings indicate that while both CCC and CCC+SO are effective interventions for improving spelling acquisition, there was minimal difference in the cumulative number of words mastered across conditions for the majority of participants. While Angela and Stephanie demonstrated a slight advantage for CCC+SO in terms of cumulative words mastered, Bobby showed virtually identical performance with both methods. Long-term retention was also largely comparable, with a slight edge for CCC+SO in Angela’s case.
The slight differences observed, particularly for Angela and Stephanie, could suggest that incorporating a sounding-out step might enhance spelling acquisition for some learners. However, the overall modest difference indicates that traditional CCC is also a highly effective method. Interestingly, error analysis revealed differing patterns, with Angela making fewer errors in CCC+SO, potentially reflecting the benefit of phonological support for her. Stephanie’s error pattern, however, suggests that sounding out might not always reduce errors and could even increase them for some individuals.
The study’s findings contrast somewhat with some earlier research that suggested a more pronounced advantage for CCC+SO. A key methodological difference lies in the consistency of testing procedures. Previous studies sometimes instructed participants to sound out words in post-tests only for the CCC+SO condition, potentially skewing results in favor of CCC+SO. In this study, participants were not instructed to sound out words during retention tests for either condition, allowing for a fairer compare spelling assessment based solely on the practice methods themselves. This suggests that the benefit of CCC+SO might be most apparent when students are allowed to use the sounding-out strategy during testing as well as practice.
The study reinforces the established effectiveness of CCC as a valuable tool for improving spelling skills for students with and without disabilities. The finding that CCC+SO is not significantly more effective than CCC in terms of cumulative words mastered suggests that the added complexity of sounding out may not always be necessary to achieve positive spelling outcomes. However, for students who naturally prefer or benefit from a phonological approach, CCC+SO remains a viable and potentially beneficial option. The type of words being taught and the student’s phonological awareness skills should also be considered when deciding between CCC and CCC+SO. Decodable words might be particularly well-suited for CCC+SO.
Limitations of this study include the possibility of carryover effects between conditions, although measures were taken to minimize this. The lack of systematic data on prompting frequency for sounding out and potential inconsistencies in praise delivery are also acknowledged limitations. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of CCC+SO in classroom settings, explore generalization to written expression, and further examine the efficiency of each method by measuring session duration.
Implications for Educators
- Cover-Copy-Compare (CCC) is a reliable and practical academic intervention to enhance spelling skills.
- Adding a sounding-out step (CCC+SO) is a refinement intended to leverage reading skills for better spelling.
- While some participants showed slightly better acquisition with CCC+SO, the overall difference when we compare spelling gains between CCC and CCC+SO was modest. More research is needed to definitively conclude that CCC+SO is significantly more effective.
- Educators should consider the nature of spelling words being taught. Decodable words might make CCC+SO a more potentially helpful refinement, assuming students possess adequate phonics skills. However, for many non-decodable words, CCC alone may be equally effective and more practical.
- Future research should explore the effectiveness and practicality of these methods in group settings and assess the broader impact on students’ writing skills.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Bailey Chapman for assistance with intervention implementation and data collection. This study was part of the requirements for a Master of Arts degree at Central Michigan University.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures adhered to the ethical standards of relevant institutional and national research committees and the Helsinki Declaration.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from parents of all participating students.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature maintains neutrality regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps.
References
(Keep original references)
