An analysis of initial acquisition and maintenance of sight words following picture matching and copy cover, and compare teaching methods.
Copy-cover-compare keeps sight words in kids’ heads better than picture matching.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Five kindergarten kids tried two ways to learn new sight words. One way matched pictures to words. The other way used copy-cover-compare: look, hide, write, check.
The teacher switched the methods every day. She tracked how many words each child could read right away and again later.
What they found
Copy-cover-compare won. All five children kept more words after this method than after picture matching.
The words stuck longer. Picture matching helped for the day, but copy-cover-compare helped for the week.
How this fits with other research
Drivas et al. (2019) later asked if adding a sounding-out step would help. It did not. Their study shows you can keep the simple copy-cover-compare routine and still get good spelling gains.
Bennett et al. (1998) used the same switch-back design with math facts. They also found that quick self-checking beats slow or no checking. The pattern holds across subjects.
Paul et al. (1987) got strong reading gains with peer tutoring. Both peer tutoring and copy-cover-compare beat regular teaching, so you now have two solid choices for early readers.
Why it matters
If you teach beginning readers, swap picture matching for copy-cover-compare. It takes no extra gear and boosts long-term recall. Start Monday: show the word, cover it, have the child write it, then check together. Repeat for three to five words a session.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace one picture-matching trial with copy-cover-compare for each new sight-word list.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study compared the copy, cover, and compare method to a picture-word matching method for teaching sight word recognition. Participants were 5 kindergarten students with less than preprimer sight word vocabularies who were enrolled in a public school in the Pacific Northwest. A multielement design was used to evaluate the effects of the two interventions. Outcomes suggested that sight words taught using the copy, cover, and compare method resulted in better maintenance of word recognition when compared to the picture-matching intervention. Benefits to students and the practicality of employing the word-level teaching methods are discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2004 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-339