International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2012, 4(2), 417-426.

Using Cover, Copy, and Compare Spelling

With and Without Timing for Elementary
Students with Behavior Disorders
∗
Danette DARROW
T. F. McLAUGHLIN
K. Mark DERBY
Gonzaga University, United States
Kathy JOHNSON
Spokane Public Schools

Received: December 2011 / Revised: February 2012 / Accepted: March 2012

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of cover, copy, and compare (CCC)
procedures on spelling performance with two students. The participants were two elementary
students enrolled in a self-contained behavior intervention classroom. A multiple baseline design
across participants was employed to evaluate the effects of CCC on time to completion and words
spelled correctly. Improvements in all measures were found when CCC was in effect. The participants
enjoyed the procedures and each improved their spelling over baseline performance. The
applicability of CCC across academic contexts and for students with behavior disorders was discussed.
Keywords: elementary students with severe behavior disorders, spelling, core words, timing, cover,
copy, and compare, single case research designs

Introduction
Spelling remains an important skill to teach in the schools (Graham, Harris, Fink-Chorzempa,
& Adkins, 2004; McLaughlin, Weber, & Barretto, 2004). As described by Wanzek, Vaughn,
Wexler, Swanson, Edmonds, and Kim (2006), spelling requires the learner to match the
sounds of language with the appropriate letters in right order to correctly and reliably
convey messages in text. Effective spelling can heighten decoding skills and spelling-sound
knowledge. Spelling skills can further improve instruction in alphabetic understanding as
well as reading (Graham, Harris, & Fink-Chorzempa, 2002). As discussed in Santoro, Coyne,

∗
Danette Darrow, M. Ed., Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA United States.
99258-0025 Email: [email protected]

ISSN:1307-9298
Copyright © IEJEE
www.iejee.com
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education , 2012, 4(2), 417-426.

and Simmons (2006), the literature suggests that the actual process of spelling involves the
critical integration of phonological and alphabetic skills required during reading acquisition.
Several procedures have been found to be effective for improving skills in spelling
(McLaughlin et al., 2004). As noted by Wanzek et al. (2006), the use of computer-assisted
instruction can produce improved spelling of words in context. Using a computer cannot
only increase the motivation of a student, but it allows for direct and personalized
instruction, specifically for students with LD. Computer based instruction (CBI) was
evaluated by Mayfield, Glenn, and Vollmer (2008) as a method to teach spelling to two 6th
graders. A voice recording of each word was presented as a prompt for the students to type
the word. CBI training procedure was used for error correction; which consisted of prompt
fading, systematic review of errors and practice. Their results indicated a need for several 15-
minute training sessions to occur in order for each participant to score 100% for each word
set. However data for maintenance phase resulted in an average performance of 93% across
all word sets. These overall results helped establish the effectiveness of a computerized
spelling program for average learners. Spell checkers are part of most word processing
programs. With the use of such features, some may view spelling as no longer an important
skill. Unfortunately, spell check programs are not all that accurate in finding and correcting
spelling errors in composition (Wissick, 2005).
Class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) review and practice procedures have been implemented to
improve the spelling skills with both students with disabilities and students at-risk for school
failure (Swanson & Greenwood, 1996). Karagiannakis (2008) evaluated the use of CWPT with
a group of 40 boys, some with behavior problems. She reported that the CWPT procedure
had a positive impact, not only with subject matter areas in academics, but also the
participants’ self-concept, social status, and on-task behavior. Results of this research
showed significant academic improvements, as well as gains in social functioning with
CWPT.
Cover, copy, and compare (CCC) is a strategy that has been used to improve accuracy and
fluency, as well as demonstrating maintenance across students, academic skill domains, and
settings (McLaughlin & Skinner, 1996; Skinner, McLaughlin, & Logan 1997). Skinner et al.
defined the steps of CCC as: (1) looking at the academic stimulus, (2) covering the stimulus,
(3) responding by copying the stimulus, and (4) evaluating the responses by comparing it to
the original stimulus. Cates, Dunne, Erkfritz, Kivisto, Lee, and Wierzbicki, (2007) assessed the
effects of a CCC procedure and a constant time delay procedure on the acquisition,
subsequent maintenance, and adaptation of acquired spelling words to oral reading
passages. The results of Cates et al. suggested that the combined use of CCC and time delay
was effective; however the CCC procedure resulted in higher levels of maintenance for some
of their participants. Cieslar, McLaughlin, and Derby (2008) evaluated the effects of (CCC)
procedure to improve both spelling and math performance with a freshman with behavior
disorders enrolled in a special education classroom setting. A functional relationship
between their procedure and an increase in both mathematics and spelling performance
was found. Carter, McLaughlin, Derby, Schuler, and Everman (2011) implemented CCC in a
self-contained classroom for high school students with severe behavior disorders. The effects
of CCC were evaluated with combination multiple baseline and reversal design. They found
that CCC was effective to increase the spelling accuracy of the 240 commonly used words.
The return to baseline did not decrease the spelling performance for two of their three
remaining participants. The subsequent replication of the CCC procedures maintained high
student spelling performance. Stading, Williams, and McLaughlin (1996) evaluated the
effects of CCC on the mastery of multiplication facts with a third grade girl with learning
disability in a home setting. Their results indicated CCC was successful in improving

418
 Using Cover, Copy, and Compare Spelling With and Without …/ D.Darrow, T.F. McLauglin, K.M. Derby, K. Johnson

multiplication skills in a home setting. Lastly, Skinner, Belfiore, and Pierce (1992) assessed
the effect of CCC with behavior disorder students. The results of their research suggested
that the CCC procedure was an effective method in increasing the geography accuracy of
students with behavior disorders.
The use of timing has been suggested as a way to improve the academic fluency of students.
Typically, a teacher or student uses some device to monitor the time required to complete an
assignment or task. These data are then entered on a data form or graphed. Van Houten
and colleagues (Van Houten, Hill, & Parson, 1975; Van Houten & Thompson, 1976) were able
to improve student performance with timing, public posting of results, and feedback. This
was accomplished with little additional classroom resources (Van Houten et al., 1975). Other
educational researchers have also supported the use of timing to improve student academic
performance. Simply informing students their performance will be timed can improve
student performance (Van Houten et al., 1975; Rhymer, Dittmer, Skinner, & Jackson, 2000).
Finally, timing can improve student performance without the use of feedback, public
posting, or consequences (Miller, Hall, & Heward, 1995; Rhymer et al., 2000; Rhymer,
Henington, Skinner, & Looby, 1999; Rhymer, Skinner, Henington, D'Reaux, & Sims, 1998;
Skinner, Fletcher, & Henington, 1996). Often students with behavior disorders are slow to
complete tasks, and maybe addition of some form of timing could increase their time to
completion.
The purposes of the present research were three-fold. First, we wanted to extend and
replicate the use of CCC to elementary students with severe behavior disorders. Second, we
wanted to increase the accuracy of our participants to spell words thought to be important
for each grade level in the school district in which they were enrolled. Third, we wanted to
examine the effects of timing on an academic task. We did so by measured by time to
complete the spelling task with one of our participants.
Method
Participants and Setting
The master teacher and the first author selected the two participants. They were chosen
because of their spelling errors on written assignments. Participant 1 had been enrolled in
special education since preschool. He was a 6th grader at the time of the study and had been
placed in a behavior instruction special education classroom since 1st grade. This participant
had an IEP for all academic areas, for behavior, and for speech. He had been diagnosed with
having apraxia and received 1 hour of speech per week at school and also 1 hour per week
outside of school. Based on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ III) (Woodcock,
McGrew, & Mather, 2008). Participant 1 read at approximately a 1st grade 8-month level. He
was in the process of mainstreaming into his regular education class at the time of the study.
Participant 2 had an IEP goal for behavior and also for the academic area of writing. He was
in the 3rd grade at the time of the study and had been in the behavior intervention special
education classroom for 3 years. Based on standardized testing (Woodcock et al., 2008),
Participant 2 read at approximately a 2nd grade 6-month level. While Participant 2 needed
additional instruction with spelling and he also is a slow worker. The first author and
classroom staff wanted to decrease the amount of time it took him to complete his spelling
tasks. It was also a goal to have this reduction in time to completion generalize to taking less
time to independently complete his the CCC sheet.
Both participants in this study were enrolled in the same self-contained special education
classroom. This elementary school was located in a low-socioeconomic area in a large urban
city in the Pacific Northwest. There was an average of 10 students enrolled in the classroom.

419
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education , 2012, 4(2), 417-426.

The academic performance of the class ranged from the 2nd to 6th grade level in reading,
math, and written communication. Most students left the classroom at various times during
the day to attend other classes such as band, PE, and library. There were two certified
teachers in the classroom and three qualified instructional aides as well as the first author.
She was a full-time student teacher in the classroom at the time of the study. Instructional
formats included individual time, small group, and whole group. The first author worked
with the participants at various times during the school day. Participant 1, whom had
mainstreamed into his regular education classroom, was typically taught spelling in the
afternoons on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Participant 2 was taught spelling prior to or toward
the end of reading time, which occurred in the morning just before lunch. Spelling sessions
lasted anywhere from 15 to 40 minutes. Other students as well as two or three adults were
present in the room when data collection took place.
Materials
A variety of materials were utilized during the study. These included two pieces of blank
lined paper for the pre-test and post-test, a CCC table on a sheet of printer paper, a list of
core words each for grades 1 and 3, a timer for measuring time to completion, and preferred
rewards such as candy, chips, or a granola bar.
Dependent Variables and Measurement
The dependent variable measured in this study was the number of words spelled correct on
pre- and posttests. For Participant 2, an additional dependent variable was measured, that of
time to completion. This was defined as the time it took to complete his spelling tasks. The
participant was timed during the pre-test and if he decreased his time during the posttest,
he would earn a reward. His reward was a piece of candy from a bag. All sessions were
scored using a list of all the words. Corrects were marked with a + sign in the column next
the word if they correctly spelled that word, a – sign was used to indicate a word had been
misspelled. The date for each column of data points was written at the top of the end
column.
Experimental Design and Procedure
A single case multiple baseline design across participants (Kazdin, 2010) was used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the CCC procedure on spelling core words.
Baseline. During baseline, each participant was administered a spelling test using 10 core
words taken from the grade level core word list appropriate for that student based on his
current level determined by standardized achievement scores. Baseline data were taken for
three days for Participant 1, and two days for Participant 2. During these sessions, each
participant was given a piece of lined paper with the numbers 1 through 10 printed in the
left margin. The researcher orally administered each participant his 10 words chosen of the
core word list. No feedback was provided to the participants during baseline. Beginning at
Session 6, the time to completion baseline for Participant 2 was taken.
CCC. After baseline, the CCC procedure was implemented. During the first session, each
participant was given a pretest using the same words given during the baseline sessions.
Beginning on Session 6, Participant 2 was timed during the pretest and told if he decreased
his time to complete his the posttest, he would earn an award. After the pretest the
participant was provided with a CCC worksheet. The student read the first word in the first
column; next they copied the word into the next column. After the participant copied the
word it was covered using a blank sheet of paper. Next, each participant wrote this word
from memory in the CCC column. Once they finished writing the word, the blank sheet of
paper was removed and the participant compared the spelling of the word they wrote from

420
 Using Cover, Copy, and Compare Spelling With and Without …/ D.Darrow, T.F. McLauglin, K.M. Derby, K. Johnson

memory to the word given in the first column. If they misspelled the word, they were
required to write the correct spelling in the final column provided. After this error correction
procedure, they moved to the next word. This condition was in effect for 11 to 17 sessions.
Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement was collected using a blank data-scoring sheet that was identical to
the primary data sheet. Either the master teacher or an instructional aide was given the
spelling tests to be checked. The same scoring procedure using the + or – signs was
employed. These spelling tests scores were masked. This allowed the scoring to be
independent each time reliability of measurement was taken. Reliability was taken for 50%
of the total amount of sessions performed with Participant 1 and for 53% of the total amount
of sessions performed with Participant 2. The agreement quotient was computed by
dividing the number of agreements by the number agreements plus disagreements
multiplied by 100. The mean agreement was 96% for Participant 1 with a range of 90 to
100%. The mean agreement for participant 2 was 96% with a range of 70 to 100%. Two
adults in the classroom independently but simultaneously recorded the amount of time
required for Participant 2 to complete his posttest. The smaller number of seconds was
divided by the larger and multiplied by 100. Overall agreement for time to completion
ranged from 98 to 100% with an overall mean of 99%.
Results
Participant 1
Accuracy in baseline for Participant 1 was low (M = 15%; range 10 to 20%). With the
implementation of the CCC procedure, Participant 1 increased his performance by correctly
spelling seven words on his first posttest.

Figure 1. The number of words spelled correctly during, baseline, cover, copy, and compare for Participant 1.
Open circles are weekly pretest scores and closed circles are posttest scores.

421
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education , 2012, 4(2), 417-426.

The last baseline data was used as a pretest prior to the CCC procedure being implemented.
Therefore the first data point during the CCC procedure was used as a posttest score.
Participant 1 continued to increase the number of words he spelled correctly. Once the
participant had correctly spelled all 10 of the words for two consecutive posttests, a new list
from his core word list was created. When List two was first introduced (Session 9), his
number of correct words decreased to near baseline levels. However, after the CCC
procedure he steadily increased his performance. Between Sessions 11 and 12 there was a
no instruction for approximately 15 days. Due to this loss of instructional time, our
participants performed at lower levels than they had prior to the break. After the first session
of CCC following the break, the participant steadily increased his amount of words spelled
correctly and within a couple sessions had mastered the second word list. Due to the
student correctly spelling all 10 words on two consecutive posttests, the researcher finished
data collection for Participant 1.
Participant 2
In baseline the mean percent correct was low (M = 25; range 20 to 30%). When the CCC

Figure 2. The number of words spelled correctly during, baseline, cover, copy, and compare with
Participant 2. Open circles are weekly pretest scores and closed circles are posttest scores.

was implemented, the number of correctly spelled words increased. Again, the first data
point during the CCC procedure was taken as a posttest since his last baseline point was
used for the pretest. After the first CCC session, the participant had doubled the number of
words spelled correctly. During session 4 the participant had scored the same on his pretest
has he had done on the last posttest but after the CCC procedure he was able to spell all 10
words correctly. For the remainder of the sessions, Participant 2 continued to spell 80 to
100% of the words correctly. Overall his data was stable but it was not until the 10th and 11th
sessions that he scored a 10 consecutively on the posttests. After this, the researcher
constructed a second list to use with the same core word list. The participant scored a 9 on
the pretest and an 8 on the posttest with this new list of words. This list was only used for
two more sessions due to the participant correctly spelling all the words on both posttests. A
third list was then constructed from the same core word list. The participant correctly
spelled all 10 words on the pretest; therefore the researcher did not implement that CCC
procedure or give the posttest for this list. A fourth list was then developed with all new
words from the core word list. The participant correctly spelled 9 words on the pretest and
10 words on his posttest. Because the participant’s performance with these core words, it
was decided to use core word list for the next grade level. The final list used was comprised

422
 Using Cover, Copy, and Compare Spelling With and Without …/ D.Darrow, T.F. McLauglin, K.M. Derby, K. Johnson

using the 4th grade core word list. The participant correctly spelled 8 words on the pretest
with this list and 10 on the posttest. Two more sessions were conducted using this list of
words. Our participant had mastered this list in just two sessions. Data collection ended for
Participant 2 when the first author’s student teaching was completed.

Figure 3. The amount of time in minutes (speed) required for Participant 2 to complete his pre- and
post-testing.

For Participant 2, time to completion was assessed beginning on Session 6. A decrease in

total amount of time it took to complete his posttest was found. However, his pretest only
slightly increased from that recorded in baseline, which was less than 6 minutes. The
average time spent on his pretests was 4 minutes and 41 seconds. The average time spent
on his posttests was approximately 3.91 minutes. His time to completion for his pretests
remained stable, while his posttest timings showed a decreasing trend.
Discussion
The overall results of this study indicated that using the CCC procedure for spelling improved
the accuracy of spelling for two students placed in a behavior instruction classroom. Their
performance steadily improved with use of CCC. The present outcomes replicate previous
research using CCC for students with behavior disorders (Cater et al., 2011; Cieslar et al.,
2008; Skinner et al., 1994) and that reported with students with other disabilities (Cates et al.,
2007; Murphy et al., 1994). In the present investigation, the researcher was able to effectively
employ CCC in an elementary special education classroom for students with severe behavior
disorders.
Although the participants were both successful in using the CCC, their performance varied
widely. It can be assumed that Participant 1 had less stable data because of the amount of
time he spent in the general education classroom. Participant 1 spent less time working with
the first author and had a considerable length of time where he was unable to practice his
spelling words because his was not in the special education classroom. Participant 1
appeared to be affected by his apraxia. This made it much more difficult for him to sound

423
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education , 2012, 4(2), 417-426.

out his words as he was trying to spell them. Knowing this, the first author spent
considerably more amount of time in spelling with Participant 1 than Participant 2. Even
when the first author spent more time with him, his apraxia still affected his outcomes.
Participant 2 successfully increased the number of words he spelled correctly, but did not
make large gains in decreasing the time he took him to complete his tests. While the reward
was a motivation for the participant, he also had to be reminded when taking his tests that
he was wasting time with such behaviors as erasing letters to make them more eligible, or
repeating the word over to himself out loud instead of writing the word at the same time.
Participant 2 seemed to have difficulty verbally spelling the word as he wrote it. Often, he
would say the correct letter, but write a different letter. He would have to erase his error and
begin to spell the word again. Participant 2 completed 19 sessions and was able to master
four lists of words from the 3rd grade core word list and 1 list from the 4th grade core word list.
These results suggest the CCC procedure was effective in improving the spelling for this
student.
There were limitations in present investigation. These included, the amount of time available
to work with Participant 1. Since he was being mainstreamed out of the behavior
intervention classroom, the first author had less available time to work with him. Using a
participant from the classroom that remained full time in the self-contained classroom would
have avoided any long breaks in between sessions. For Participant 2, the study helped to
increase his spelling skills, but the sessions often took away time from his reading instruction.
While Participant 2 was in the classroom for a considerable amount of the day, due to his
slow working habits, the first author had to determine times when she would be able to work
for a longer periods of time with him. Another possible limitation was the amount of time
preparing and scoring both the tests and each of the participant’s CCC sheet. Since the
participants had anywhere from 2-5 lists of words throughout the study, it required the
researcher writing in the words on the CCC sheet and also developing several data sheets for
both primary and reliability data collection. One way to improve the time spent on
preparation would be to develop several lists of words prior to beginning the CCC
procedure. When a participant mastered one list, the next list would already be generated
and available for implementation and use.
The cost of this study was minimal due to the fact most of the materials were already
available in the classroom. The first author only had to provide the preferred item as rewards
for Participant 2. The cost of the reward was quite low when one considers its effects on his
performance. Both participants appeared to enjoy the procedures and did present in any
behavioral issues during them. They each enjoyed sharing their success with their classroom
teachers. Participant 2 even asked to be able to take home his results to show his mother
how well he was improving in his spelling skills.
The implications of the present research are several. First, a classroom teacher can
implement CCC in their classroom. Second, data collection and analysis can occur within a
typical teaching environment. As we accomplished for Participant 2, we were able to add an
additional contingency and evaluate its effects during ongoing our classroom research.
Third, it appears that CCC should be considered as an intervention that can be an easily
implemented self-tutoring or self-management strategy in either a special education or
general education classroom setting. Finally, CCC was again shown to be an effective
academic intervention in an elementary classroom. This replicates much of our classroom
research (Carter et al., 2011; Cieslar et al., 2010; Membrey McLaughlin, Derby, & Antcliff, 2011;
Murphy et al., 1990; Skarr, McLaughlin, Derby, Meade, & Williams, in press; Stading et al.,
1996) and that of other researchers (Cates et al., 2009; Skinner et al., 1992, 1996).

424
 Using Cover, Copy, and Compare Spelling With and Without …/ D.Darrow, T.F. McLauglin, K.M. Derby, K. Johnson

References
Carter, M., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M. Schuler, H., & Everman, J. (2011). Differential effects of cover,
copy, and compare in spelling with four high school students with severe behavior disorders.
Academic Research International, 1, 44-52. Retrieved from: http://www.journals.savap. org.pk/
issue.html
Cates, G. L., Dunne, M., Erkfritz, K. N., Kivisto, A., Lee, N., & Wierzbicki, J. (2007).
Differential effects of two spelling procedures on acquisition, maintenance, and adaptation to reading.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 70-81.
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
study. Preventing School Failure, 52(4), 45-51.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. (2002). Contributions of spelling instruction to the
spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669-686.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & Adkins, M. (2004). Extra spelling instruction promotes
better spelling, writing, and reading performance right from the start. In A. Pincus (Ed.), Tips from
the experts: A compendium of advice on literacy instruction from educators and researchers. Long
Valley, NJ: NJIDA.
Karagiannakis, A. (2010). Classwide peer tutoring: Social status and self-concept of boys with and
without behavior problems. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 70.
Kazdin, A. E. (2010). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Mayfield, K. H., Glenn, I. M., & Vollmer, T. R. (2008). Teaching spelling through prompting and review
procedures using computer-based instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 303-312.
Membrey, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Antcliff, C. (2011). A modification of cover, copy, and
compare in spelling for three middle school students with multiple disabilities. International
Journal of Social Science and Education, 1(4), 491-505. Retrieved from:
http://advasol.net/?q=node/19
McLaughlin, T. F., & Skinner, C. H., (1996). Improving academic performance through self-
management: Cover, copy, and compare. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 113–119.
McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Barretto, A. (2004). Spelling: Academic interventions. In T. S. Watson
& C. H. Skinner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of school psychology (pp. 317-320). New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Miller, A. D., Hall, S. W., & Heward, W. L. (1995). Effects of sequential 1-minute time trials with and
without inter-trial feedback and self-correlation on general and special education students'
fluency with math facts. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 319-345.
Murphy, J. F., Hern, C. L., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). The effects of the copy, cover, and
compare approach in increasing spelling accuracy with learning disabled students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 378-386.
Rhymer, K. N., Dittmer, K. I., Skinner, C. H., & Jackson, B. (2000). Effectiveness of a multi-component
treatment for improving mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 40-51.
Rhymer, K. N., Henington, C., Skinner, C. H., & Looby, E. J. (1999). The effects of explicit timing on
mathematics performance in second-grade Caucasian and African American students. School
Psychology Quarterly, 14, 397-407.
Rhymer, K. N., Skinner, C. H., Henington, C., D'Reaux, R. A., & Sims, S. (1998). Effects of explicit timing on
mathematics problem completion rates in African-American third-grade elementary students.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 673-677.

425
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education , 2012, 4(2), 417-426.

Rhymer, K. N., Skinner, C. H., Jackson, S., McNeill, S., Smith, T., & Jackson, B. (2002). The 1-minute explicit
timing intervention: The influence of mathematics problem difficulty. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 29, 305-311.
Santoro, L., Coyne, M. D., & Simmons, D. C. (2006). The reading-spelling connection: Developing and
evaluating a beginning spelling intervention for children at risk of reading disability. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 122-133.
Skarr, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., Meade, K., & Williams, R. L. (in press). A comparison of direct
instruction flashcards and cover, copy, compare to teach spelling to elementary school students.
Academic Research International, 2(2). Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/ ~savaporg/ journals
/issue.html
Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Pierce, N. (1992). Cover, copy, and compare: Increasing geography
accuracy in students with behavior disorders. Schools Psychology Review, 21, 73-81.
Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning rates by increasing student
response rates: A summary of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313-325.
Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed
academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 7, 295-306.
Stading, M., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Effects of copy, cover, and compare procedure
on multiplication facts mastery with a third grade girl with learning disabilities in a home setting.
Education & Treatment of Children, 19, 425-434.
Swanson, H. L., & Greenwood, C. R. (1996). Drill-repetition-practice as effective strategies for students
with learning disabilities: Research on the practices and behavior of effective teachers at the
Juniper Gardens Children's Project: Implications for the education of diverse learners. In H. L.
Swanson (Ed.). Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning
disabilities (pp. 39-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Van Houten, R., & Thompson, C. (1976) The effects of explicit timing on math performance. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 227-230.
Van Houten, R., Hill, S. & Parson, M. (1975). An analysis of a performance feedback system: The effects
of timing and feedback, public posting and praise upon academic performance and peer
interaction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 449-457.
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, 528-543.
Wissick, C. A. (2005). Written language: When to consider technology. Technology in Action, 1(6), 1-12.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, W. S., & Mather, N. (2008). Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ III).
Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.

426