The document discusses the effectiveness of the 'cover copy compare - definition acknowledgement - sentence building' (ccc-da+sb) method to enhance vocabulary among primary level 2 students who struggle with basic English vocabulary. It outlines a structured approach to vocabulary learning that includes practice with word meanings and sentence construction, demonstrating that this method significantly improves students' vocabulary, writing, and comprehension skills. The study concludes that integrating these refinements into existing instructional strategies is beneficial for language development in young learners.

1. INCREASING ENGLISH VOCABULARY USING ‘COVER COPY
COMPARE -DEFINITION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT – SENTENCE
BUILDING (CCC-DA+SB)’ METHOD AMONG PRIMARY LEVEL 2
STUDENTS
by
Heerashini Subramaniam

2. Problem Statement
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
Students barely can
use minimum or
basic vocabulary for
their year 6 level
proficiency.
Students are lacking in
vocabulary and even
struggling to put them into
words during essay writing

3. • 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.
• Realizing the importance of vocabulary in
enhancing reading and writing proficiency,
researcher has done this experiment to tackle
students’ vocabulary ability in English.
Problem Statement

4. Literature Review
Participants who were
10-year-old students
with learning
deficiency were able
to write a basic
comprehensive essay.
Jaspers et a. (2012) and
Manfred (2015)
The researchers added
copying and spelling
out loud to the
procedure. Following
the modification, the
student scored perfect
scores on the last
Membrey, McLaughin,
Deby and Antcliff’s
(2021)
A Spanish class by a
15-year-old student
diagnosed with a
learning disability
showed improvement
in post test
Carter, Wong, and
Mayton (2013)

5. Literature Review ( CCC in
vocabulary )
Elementary students
have improved
spelling of sight
words and
vocabularies
McLaughlin, Derby, & Johnson,
2012; Erion, Davenport, Rodax,
Scholl, & Hardy, (2009)
5th
grade students
learned 10 to 12 target
words each week over
15 weeks. Students’
reading
comprehension skills
increased to 80%
Carlo (2004)
15-year-old students
with learning
deficiency who
learned 15 new words
over the course of one
week in three 25-
minute period
Carte et al. (2013)

6. Observation/ Evidence

11. Reflection
Observation
•Students not using vocabulary according to their level
Self Inquiry
•The problem caused by poor understanding and lack of reading and practice in English vocabulary
Reflection
•Students need to improve vocabulary
Target
•Doing repeated practice to increase vocabulary
Intervention
•Cover- Copy- Compare
•Added refinements are Definition Acknowledgement and Sentence Building

12. INTRODUCTION
Cover-copy-compare
(CCC) is a self-
managed spelling
intervention
With components of
modelling, self-
correction, and
immediate feedback
To teach students to
spell more accurately
than students who are
taught using
traditional spelling
instruction

13. 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.
COVER COPY COMPARE+DEFINITION
ACKNOWLEGMENT + SENTENCE BUILDING

14. Objective
•To increase
students’
vocabulary
using
CCC+DA+SB
Intervention
•During class
•30 minutes
per session
•5 times per
week
Success
indicator
•Increase in
vocabulary
and
definition of
words
•Students
applying /
integrating
new
vocabularies
learned
before in
their essays
PLAN

15. 1) Teacher gives a passage
with all new words 1 week
before.
2) Students need to
underline unknown words
and find the meaning in prior.
3) Teacher gives ccc
worksheet after 1 week.
4)Teacher will pick 13
unknown words from the
passage and write on
whiteboard.
5) Students will be given time
to pick and write 10 words in
first column
6) Teacher erases words from whiteboard
7)Students memorize the spelling, fold the
first column, write the same word on the
second column
7)Students fold and repeat
the activity in response
column
8) Students write two possible
definition they think of
9)Students build sentences
using the word
10) Conducted during English
lesson, 30 minutes per day.
n
5 6 7 8 9

21. Acceptance
1) Students can memorise
the word
2) Can spell the word
correctly
Challenges
1) Forgets quickly
2)Discussion with friends
3) Definition writing was
hard for them
4) Using Malay to write
definition
Observation During Implementation

22. Observation/ Evidence

23. Observation/ Evidence

28. New Words in Essay (Evidence)

29. New Words in Essay (Evidence)

34. Reobservation of
Impact
Students can
spell words
and tell
definition
(eventhough in
Students can
build sentences
using the words
though some
students
struggled.
Students can
apply the new
words in their
weekly essays
Objective
achieved

35. Re-reflection
Repeated
memorisation
and writing
When
meanings are
repeated
daily,
students can
remember
them well
Practising
new words in
sentence
made them
able to
integrate in
essays
The
intervention
was a
success

36. 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.

37. Discussion
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

38. Improvements/ Further actions
Repeat the
activity
throughout
the year
Make
students do
presentation
s of their
work
Peer
Tutoring-for
weak
students
Integrating
more new
words in
essay than
before (5-6
words)
Give
appreciation
for more
new words
Online quiz
using all the
words
learned
throughout
the period

39. 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 involving students’ background,
learning ability, classroom settings, topics and stimuli and so on.

40. 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 ofspelling 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.

41. CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo,
and includes icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by
Freepik
Please keep this slide for attribution
Thank You