Effect of Response Practice Variables on Learning Spelling and Sight Vocabulary

Abstract

Four experiments were conducted to examine variables associated with response practice as an instructional technique for individuals with intellectual disabilities. In Experiment 1, the effect of the cover component in the "cover write" method was evaluated, as were the comparative effects of written versus oral practice of spelling words by rehabilitation clients. The results showed that the cover procedure generally did not enhance performance over and above that produced by practice alone, and written practice generally was not superior to oral practice. Experiment 2 demonstrated that less response practice (i.e., five times) was as effective as more practice (i.e., 10 and 15 times) for teaching spelling to adolescents with developmental disabilities. Experiments 3 and 4 also showed that even less response practice (i.e., one time) was as effective as more practice (five times), and irrelevant practice following errors was as effective as relevant practice for teaching spelling and sight vocabulary to adolescents with behavior disorders and developmental disabilities, respectively. The findings suggest that a parsimonious procedure of limited response practice and positive reinforcement may be effective for the tasks and populations studied.

A meta‐analytic review of the cover‐copy‐compare and variations of this self‐management procedure

“…One study assessed the number of correct letter sequences produced by students (Hubbert, Weber, & McLaughlin, 2000), and another study measured the number of words students spelled correctly in their creative writing passages (Pratt‐Struthers, Struthers, & Williams, 1983). Studies that included measures of trials/sessions to criterion involved assessing the number of trials it took to master the MCCC (i.e., Childs, 1983) or the number of assessment trials it took to achieve spelling accuracy criterion levels (e.g., Cuvo, Ashley, Marso, Zhang, & Fry, 1995). Maintenance or retention measures mirrored those used before (i.e., pretest) or during intervention phases and were administered one day (e.g., Cates et al, 2007), two days (e.g., Nies & Belfiore, 2006), one week (Erbas, Turan, Ozen, & Halle, 2006), or a month (e.g., Van Hell, Bosman, & Bartelings, 2003) after intervention ended.…”

“…Maintenance or retention measures mirrored those used before (i.e., pretest) or during intervention phases and were administered one day (e.g., Cates et al, 2007), two days (e.g., Nies & Belfiore, 2006), one week (Erbas, Turan, Ozen, & Halle, 2006), or a month (e.g., Van Hell, Bosman, & Bartelings, 2003) after intervention ended. Generalization measures included spelling training words in a sentence (e.g., Cuvo et al, 1995), spelling novel words (e.g., Hubbert, Weber, & McLaughlin, 2000), and reading words (i.e., Cates et al, 2007). Social validity measures generally consisted of questionnaires or surveys administered to students (i.e., McAuley & McLaughlin, 1992; Murphy, Hern, Williams, & McLaughlin, 1990; Nies & Belfiore, 2006).…”

“…Of the spelling studies, 12 examined MCCC methods, and 5 examined CCC methods. Among the 12 studies that examined MCCC, 3 referred to this method as “cover‐write” (i.e., Childs, 1983; Cuvo et al, 1995; Erbas et al, 2006), which was a variation of MCCC. For instance, in Childs's (1983) study, the cover‐write method involved students applying the following steps: (a) look at word and say it, (b) write word 2 times, (c) cover and write word 1 time, (d) check word, (e) write word 2 times, (f) cover and write word 1 time, (g) check word, (h), write word 3 times, (i) cover and write word 1 time, and (j) check work.…”

“…For example, when students practiced spelling words multiple times, they were able to meet mastery criteria in fewer sessions than when they spelled words only one time (e.g., Erion, Davenport, Rodax, Scholl, & Hardy, 2009). In the two studies that examined generalization, students were able to generalize spelling skills acquired and practiced using CCC procedures to (a) spelling words in sentences (Cuvo et al, 1995) or (b) reading words (Cates et al, 2007). Furthermore, students generally maintained their academic performance at levels higher than baseline.…”

Fluency Training a Writing Skill: Editing for Concision

“…Among those resources, in the United States, are the dozen periodicals of The National Council of the Teachers of english (2007) and even a few articles published by behavior analysts. Behavior analysts have targeted such behaviors as spelling (Cuvo, Ashley, Marso, Zhang, & Fry, 1995); low number or rates of word or sentence production (Ballard & Glynn, 1975;Porritt, Burt, & Poling, 2006;Van Houten, Morrison, Jarvis, & McDonald, 1974 ); and aspects of writing, including creativity and originality (Glover, 1979) as well as quality (Ballard & Glynn, 1975;Van Houten et al, 1974). Behavior analytic treatment packages have included preparatory activities (Glover, 1979); timed and untimed practice (Cuvo et al, 1995;Glover & Gary, 1976;Van Houten et al, 1974); and, of course, consequences such as reinforcement and feedback (Ballard & Glynn, 1975;Brigham, Graubard, & Stans, 1972;Glover, 1979;Glover & Gary, 1976;Porritt et al, 2006).…”