Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2006, 41(4), 357–364
© Division on Developmental Disabilities
Effect of an Adapted “Cover Write” Method to Word-Naming
and Spelling to Students with Developmental Disabilities in
Turkey
Dilek Erbas
Yasemin Turan
Anadolu University
San Diego State University
Arzu Ozen
James W. Halle
Anadolu University
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Abstract: The purpose of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the “cover write” method of teaching
word-naming and spelling to two Turkish students with developmental disabilities. A multiple-probe design
across three, 5-word sets was employed to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. The “cover write” method
was modified to accommodate the learning needs of the students. Results of the study revealed that after
instruction students named the words and spelled them correctly. Furthermore, maintenance and setting
generality of word acquisition were assessed one week after instruction ended in an art class where it was found
that the students named and spelled the words independently.
Difficulties with spelling are typically recognized in early school years and these difficulties often progress as students reach secondary education grades. Given the fact that
spelling is related to school success (Fulk &
Stormont-Spurgin, 1995), it is critical to develop interventions for poor spellers. In a review of spelling interventions for students with
disabilities, Fulk and Stormont-Spurgin concluded that a range of effective methods for
enhancing spelling skills was available for
these students; however, the issues relating to
skill maintenance and generalization rarely
have been addressed. The purpose of the
present study was to examine the effectiveness
of an adapted “cover write” method to improve spelling and naming skills of two children with developmental disabilities. Maintenance and generalization of these newly
acquired skills were assessed in the context of
an art project.
The rationale for this intervention is based on
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dilek Erbas, Anadolu Universitesi,
Dil ve Konusma Bozukluklari Egitim, Uygulama ve
Arastirma Merkezi (DİLKOM), 26470, Eskisehir,
TURKIYE. E-mail:[email protected]
a study by Cuvo, Ashley, Marso, Zhang, and Fry
(1995). These researchers conducted a series of
experiments to investigate the effects of several
variables on the spelling performance of children and adults with disabilities. These variables
included written and oral practice, frequency of
practice, and task relevance of practice. Results
of this study revealed that (a) oral and written
practice were equally effective and (b) more
practice did not necessarily produce larger effects. The authors concluded “more parsimonious instructional procedures may be as effective
and efficient as more elaborate ones.” (Cuvo et
al., 1995, p. 477).
Our study differed from that of Cuvo et al.
(1995) in two ways (a) younger children with
developmental delays participated and (b) students’ special education teacher served as the
interventionist. The purpose of this study was to
evaluate the acquisition, maintenance, and generalized effects of an adapted cover-write procedure to teach students with developmental disabilities to name and to spell words.
Method
Students, Setting and Materials
Two Turkish children with developmental disabilities participated in the study. Samet was a
Teaching Spelling
/
357
7-year-old boy and Zeynep was an 8-year-old
girl. They followed two-word directions, used
two-word phrases to express their needs and
wants and to make comments. They could
read approximately 50 sight words and could
print the letters of the Turkish alphabet independently when a visual model (i.e., a flash
card) was provided. However, neither of them
was able to write independently without a
flash card model. Physical examination demonstrated that for both children auditory and
visual skills were within normal limits. Before
starting the study, parents of the two students
were informed about the study and written
permission was obtained for their child’s participation. Real names of students were replaced with pseudonyms during reporting.
Samet and Zeynep were enrolled in different classrooms that they attended three times
weekly. They received individual instruction
lasting approximately one hour. The study was
conducted in two different classrooms for students with developmental disabilities at the
Research Institute for the Handicapped at Anadolu University in Turkey. Classrooms were
4-by-4 meters with an observation mirror on
one of the walls. Each room contained six
tables and 10 chairs and a variety of toys and
educational materials. Four students with developmental disabilities and three student
teachers were present during the baseline and
intervention sessions in each classroom. All
sessions were videotaped. A certified special
education teacher conducted all of the teaching and assessment sessions with the students.
Independent data collectors, working as
teaching assistants at Anadolu University, collected inter-observer agreement and procedural fidelity data.
To enhance comprehension of the words, a
picture of each target word was attached to a
flash card, approximately 8 by 8 cm in size. A
matching word was printed under each picture
using lower case 72-point Arial type. The flashcards with pictures were used only during intervention sessions. During baseline and probe sessions, similar flashcards were used, but the
pictures of the target words were omitted.
Screening Procedures and Target Words
Prior to intervening, a pool of 60 words was
generated by reviewing class materials in the
358
/
students’ classrooms and community facilities.
A screening session was conducted to determine words students spelled incorrectly. For
this purpose, students were given two types of
assessments, oral and written. In the oral assessment, the teacher asked the students to
name each word orally from the pool. In the
written assessment, the teacher asked the students to write the word they had just attempted to name, after the word was covered.
The accuracy of word naming and spelling was
recorded. Only those words with which both
students had difficulty were selected for training to control for the effect that different
words might introduce. Fifteen words were
identified from this process and were randomly grouped into three, 5-word sets. Set 1
consisted of Masa (table), bardak (glass), saat
(clock), balık (fish), and süt (milk). Set 2
consisted of armut (pear), muz (banana), bal
(honey), kapı (door), and sıra (desk). Set 3
consisted of inek (cow), çicek (flower), ayı
(bear), top (ball), and ip (rope). Both students were instructed on the same three sets
in the same sequence.
Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement
The recording system selected for word-naming and spelling was discrete categorization
(Kazdin, 1982). Permanent products of the
written assessments were analyzed. A response
was recorded as correct if students read and
wrote the word correctly. Examples of incorrect responses included omitting/adding a
letter or sound, changing the order of the
letter or sound, and printing a letter incorrectly such as reversing a letter or omitting a
line of the letter. To be conservative in our
definition of a correct response, self-corrections were recorded as incorrect responses.
Data were gathered during baseline, intervention and maintenance/generalization
phases. Two types of probes were conducted
to assess progress throughout the study:
5-word probes and 15-word probes (see Figures 1 and 2). Five-word probes were conducted after the first day of intervention to
assess the child’s pattern of acquisition of the
5-word set to which intervention was introduced. These probes were scheduled prior to
each intervention session (except the first)
and lasted 10 minutes or longer depending on
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2006
Figure 1. Mean percent of correct responses on assessment trials during baseline, training, and maintenance/
generalization sessions for Samet.
the students’ responsiveness. Probe sessions
occurred 2-4 days per week. In addition to
5-word probes, students’ performance on all
15 words was assessed during the baseline, and
intervention phases of the study. Each student
received three, 15-word probes to establish a
baseline. The timing of the 15-word probes
varied during intervention and depended on
the point in time when the student met criterion on each 5-word set: three 15-word probes
were conducted each time the student met
criterion of a 5-word set (see Figures 1 and 2).
These probes lasted approximately 30 minutes, but their duration varied depending on
the students’ responsiveness.
In addition to data collection on children’s
word-naming and spelling skills, procedural
fidelity data were collected to monitor the
implementation of intervention procedures. A
checklist was developed (see Table 1) that
included relevant teacher behaviors during
both baseline/probe assessments and intervention sessions. To gather fidelity data, occurrences and non-occurrences of each
teacher behavior were marked on the checklist. To assess interobserver agreement on the
dependent and independent variables, two
observers (naive to the nature and purpose of
the study) independently scored 50% of the
sessions; all sessions were videotaped for data
analysis. For the spelling assessment, students’
data sheets (permanent products) also were
checked. Interobserver agreement was calculated as the number of agreements divided by
the number of agreements plus disagreements
multiplied by 100. Interobserver agreement
was 100% for the naming and spelling assessments for both students. Percentage of agreement on procedural fidelity also was 100% for
both students.
Experimental Design
A within-student, multiple-probe design across
three, 5-word sets was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the “cover write” method for
teaching word-naming and spelling skills to
two children with disabilities. Baseline data
Teaching Spelling
/
359
Figure 2. Mean percent of correct responses on assessment trials during baseline, training, and maintenance/
generalization sessions for Zeynep.
were collected on all 15 words for both children for three sessions. Intervention began
with the first set of five words. When a child
reached the established criterion (see below)
for the first word set, data were collected on
all three word sets. Then, the intervention was
introduced for the second word set. When the
child reached criterion on the second word
set, all three word sets again were evaluated.
Finally, intervention was extended to the third
word set.
Procedure
Baseline sessions (15-word probes). Baseline
was synonymous with the 15-word probe sessions. Each trial began with the word-naming
task and continued with the written-spelling
task for each word, one at a time. The teacher
and the student were sitting at a desk 1 m.
apart, facing each other. During word-naming, the teacher randomly picked a flash card
360
/
and showed it to the student and asked the
student to read the written word on the flash
card. Then, regardless of the accuracy of the
oral response, the teacher asked the student
to write the written word independently after
she covered the word (see Table 1). If the
child responded correctly to both the wordnaming and written-spelling tasks for the target word, the teacher recorded a “⫹” and
moved to the next word to be assessed. If the
child responded incorrectly to either of the
tasks described above, the teacher recorded a
“-” and moved to the next word to be assessed.
Thus, to be recorded as correct, both the naming and spelling tasks had to be correct. The
children were not given any feedback regarding the accuracy of their responses.
Intervention sessions and 5-word probes. Each
intervention session was divided into two phases: a 10-minute assessment phase (i.e., the
5-word probe) and a 20-minute teaching
phase. These sessions always began with the
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2006
TABLE 1
Procedural Fidelity Checklist
Teacher behaviors
Baseline/Probe Oral and
Written Assessments
Intervention
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Show a written word to student
Prompt student, “Read the word”
Wait 10 seconds for student’s response
Regardless of accuracy of the oral response, cover the word
Prompt student, “Write the word”
Wait 10 seconds for student’s response
If student responds correctly on both the word-naming and spelling tasks for
the target word, put a “⫹” on the recording sheet, and continue with the
remaining words on the list
8. If the students responds incorrectly in either the word naming or writing
spelling tasks for the target words, put a “⫺” on the recording sheet, and
continue with the remaining words on the list
1. Show written word to student
2. Tell student, “Read the word”
3. If the student reads the word correctly, praise and prompt “Write this word
three times” while student is looking at the word.
4. If the student does not respond or responds incorrectly, model by reading
the word and prompt, “Write this word three times” while student is looking
at the written word.
5. After child writes the word three times with a written-word cue (imitation),
prompt, “Now, cover the word and write it again”
6. If student misspells the word, correct the spelling with a red pencil
7. Tell student “Now, write the word one more time by looking at my
corrections”
8. If student spells the word correctly, praise
9. At the end of the session, provide an edible item for completing the session.
10-minute assessment phase (except for the
first intervention session for each 5-word
probe) to evaluate acquisition during the intervention condition. This assessment contained only those 5 words that were receiving
intervention at the time and followed the
baseline procedures described above. The assessment phase was followed by the teaching
phase of the session. During teaching, the
students received instruction on the five words
in the targeted word set. However, if they met
the criterion for any word during a 5-word
probe assessment (i.e., they named and
spelled the word correctly on 2 consecutive
probes), the word was excluded from training
during the following intervention phase. Regardless of children’s accuracy, all five words
always were evaluated during 5-word probe
assessment that preceded the intervention
phase. During the intervention phase, the order of the words taught was determined ran-
domly and each word was taught one at a time
using the “cover write” method (see Table 1).
The “cover write” method described by
Cuvo et al. (1995) was adapted for students in
this study. In the Cuvo et al. study, students
checked and self-corrected their written work
when the instructor gave them verbal directions (i.e., “See if the words you printed look
like the ones at the top of your paper. If they
do, tell me. If they are not spelled right, draw
a line through the word, and print it correctly
next to the misspelled word.”). The special
education teacher reported that this method
would be difficult for students in this study.
Therefore, the instructor delivered an errorcorrection procedure in which she corrected
the students’ errors using a red pencil. The
following eight steps describe implementation
of the “cover write” intervention used in this
study: (1) The student looks at a flash card
and says the word; (2) the student writes the
Teaching Spelling
/
361
word three times while looking at the flash
card; (3) the student places the flash card on
the desk out of sight; (4) the student writes
the word three more times; (5) if the student
misspells the word, the teacher corrects the
spelling with a red pencil; (6) the student
writes the word one more time by looking at
the teacher’s correction; (7) the teacher acknowledges each corrected or independent
correct response by providing social praise
(e.g., “Good job”) to the student; and (8) to
increase the child’s motivation to engage in
the task, the teacher gives a preferred edible
item for task completion, regardless of the
child’s performance on word naming and
spelling.
The intervention continued for each word
until the child met the established criterion
(i.e., all five words were named and spelled
correctly during the oral and written assessments for two consecutive probes). Once a
child met the established criterion, the next
word set was introduced for intervention. If a
word was named and/or spelled incorrectly
after the child met the established criterion
(i.e., during a later 15-word probe, then teaching on that word would be retained. However,
this was never necessary in this study.
Maintenance and Generalization Sessions
An assessment of maintenance and setting
generality was conducted during an art activity
one week after training was completed. There
were a total of nine sessions in which children
were assessed on the same 3 5-word sets. Each
session was conducted on a different day and
2 to 3 assessment sessions occurred during the
week. One 5-word set was evaluated each session and the order of the words in each set was
determined randomly. The assessment was repeated three times for each word set. After the
first evaluation was completed for each of the
three 5-word sets, a second round of evaluations was conducted for all three sets and,
later, a third round.
In contrast to the baseline and probe procedures described above, in the maintenance/generalization phase (i.e., in the art
activity), the written-spelling assessment was
conducted first and followed by the oral-naming assessment. Pictures of the target words
were inserted on an 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of
362
/
white paper and the words corresponding to
the pictures were printed on the back of the
paper. The activity began by exposing the children only to the picture-side of the paper, so
they could not see the printed words. During
each art activity, five pictures were introduced,
three on one sheet of paper and two on another. In the beginning of the activity, the
children were asked to work on the first three
pictures only. The teacher pointed to the first
picture and said “Color the first picture.” After
the child colored the first picture, the teacher
pointed to the picture and said “Now write
what is in the picture underneath it.” Then,
the teacher extended these procedures to second and third pictures. After the children
completed the coloring and writing-spelling
tasks, the teacher turned the page and asked
the students to read the words printed on the
back of the page 1-at-a-time so that the student
named the word without having access to the
pictures on the front. Responses were considered to be correct only if they were named
and spelled correctly. This phase of the art
activity was followed by approximately a 30minute break during which the students engaged in variety of other tasks scheduled for
the day. These tasks varied depending on each
student’s individual goals and included activities related to math and self-help skills. The
assessment continued with the reaming two
pictures using the same procedures described
above.
Results
Figures 1 and 2 display the students’ independent word-naming and spelling performance
during the baseline, intervention, and maintenance/generalization phases. The students’
never made a correct response during baseline on the 15-word probes. However, each
demonstrated rapid acquisition following the
introduction of the “cover write” intervention.
Samet’s correct responding increased immediately and averaged 80% of the opportunities
(range, 60% to 100%), 86% (range, 60% to
100%) and 76% (range, 40% to 100%) for the
first, second and third 5-word sets, respectively. As important as the experimental control demonstrated by Samet’s performance in
the multiple-probe design, his correct responding maintained at 100% in the mainte-
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2006
nance/generalization assessment sessions
conducted during art class. (An error in the
intervention protocol was made during the
training of the second 5-word set; instead of
introducing the 15-word probe after 2 consecutive sessions at 100% responding, a third
session was conducted by mistake.)
Similar to Samet’s acquisition during intervention, Zeynep acquired the word-naming
and spelling responses rapidly, but not quite
as quickly as Samet. Zeynep’s mean percentage of correct responses was 64 with a range of
0% and 100% for the first word set. She averaged 72% (range, 10% to 100%) and 60%
(range, 10% to 100%) for the second and
third word sets, respectively. Also similar to
Samet’s performance, Zeynep’s correct responding remained at 100% during maintenance/generalization assessment in art class.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine
effectiveness of an adapted cover-write instructional procedure on the acquisition, maintenance, and setting generality of the wordnaming and spelling skills of two young Turkish children with developmental disabilities.
The results of the present study support the
findings of Cuvo et. al. (1995), demonstrating
that the “cover write” procedure was an effective means of teaching word-naming and spelling to the students. Both students’ performance improved rapidly when, and only
when, they were exposed to the intervention.
In addition to the prompting and praise, two
other features of the intervention may have
contributed to this rapid acquisition: (a) the
error-correction procedure and (b) the target
words selected. The error-correction procedure, in which the instructor highlighted in
red the letters or syllables that the students
misspelled, appeared to be very effective. Following this procedure, the students spelled
the words with few errors, suggesting that the
error-correction procedure used in this study
might be an effective alternative for those students who are unable to fix their own errors
(as was done in the Cuvo et al., 1995 study).
Second, the target words were selected from a
pool by reviewing materials in the students’
classrooms and community. Thus, there was
an intentional effort to identify words that
would be meaningful and relevant to the children because they encountered them frequently in their everyday environments.
Several limitations of the present study warrant further discussion. One limitation can be
observed in Word Set 2 for Zeynep. Prior to
introducing intervention, she named and
spelled one word correctly in baseline, suggesting that she knew this word prior to training. We do not have an explanation for this
data point because Zeynep consistently failed
to name and spell the word correctly during
the previous assessment sessions. One possible
explanation; however, might be related to
how the special education teacher structured
her classroom environment. She reported that
she labeled and displayed written text in her
classroom to increase her students’ exposure
to print and this might have contributed to
Zeynep’s performance in relation to this
word.
Another limitation is that that maintenance/generalization assessments were conducted only one week after the study ended;
this is not a rigorous test of maintenance.
Furthermore, the probes conducted in art
class (to assess setting generalization) were
programmed only after intervention was complete. No probes were conducted during baseline and therefore we do not know for certain
whether the two students would have named
and spelled the words correctly in art class
during baseline. Nonetheless, on 179/180
word-opportunities during baseline in the regular classroom, the students failed to correctly
name and spell the 15 target words, suggesting
that they did not know the correct responses
prior to intervention.
Finally, the word-naming task in the maintenance/generalization phase occurred immediately after the students colored the pictures of and spelled two or three target words.
This sequence might have increased the accuracy of their word-naming performance. However, the more difficult written-spelling assessment was conducted prior to the oral-naming
assessment. Results suggest that the students
continued to produce the target skills, 1 week
after the intervention, in the art activity.
This study replicates and extends the findings of Cuvo et al. (1995). The current findings appear to be promising as both students
rapidly acquired and maintained the targeted
Teaching Spelling
/
363
skills one week after the intervention ended.
Future research should focus on evaluating
maintenance and generalization of effects of
the “cover write” method beyond one week
and expand the assessment of setting generalization to multiple daily routines and activities
where word-naming and spelling are naturally
occurring responses required for engagement
in the activity (e.g., simple computer crossword puzzles or reading a book aloud). Too
often in research our generalization probes
are highly controlled and may not reflect children’s performance in their naturally occurring daily activities. Striving for such ecological validity is a methodological challenge.
Examination of the adapted “cover write”
method also is warranted. Two potential directions for future research are replication of the
current study and comparing the findings
with and without the error-correction procedure as part of the intervention package.
Thus, a valuable addition to the literature
would be a component analysis to identify
which intervention components contributed
to the effectiveness of the package. In conclu-
364
/
sion, it appears that the “cover write” method
is a simple and effective means of teaching
word-naming and spelling to young children
with developmental disabilities. This study
replicated systematically that of Cuvo and his
colleagues and extended the findings to students and teachers in a classroom setting in
Turkey.
References
Cuvo, A. J., Ashley, K. M., Marso, K. J., Zhang, B. L.,
& Fry, T. A. (1995). Effect of response practice
variables on learning spelling and sight vocabulary. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 155–
173.
Fulk, B. M., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995). Fourteen spelling strategies for students with learning
disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 3(1),
16 –20.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research design. New
York: Oxford Press.
Received: 14 July 2005
Initial Acceptance: 10 September 2005
Final Acceptance: 20 June 2006
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2006