Best Educational App
released this fall
ACE Edutainment Apps is releasing its brand new educational game, with better features than ever!
Now you can tap or tilt your tablet for gaming. The newest addition to ACE’s line is a series of mini games that will help your child like never before. With simple memory cards, to exciting phonic games, ACE ensures that your child learns only the best English. Why choose homework over a fast and exciting game? You can go through the levels step by step or you can go at your own pace with the unique game ability that that unlocks the level your child is at! For instance if your child is able to get a certain amount of points during the spelling bee mini game s/he will unlock levels far faster, such as skipping the first ten levels of the other games. If you and your child prefer, you can add your own custom words into the games to ensure the best possible learning. Don’t like the voice overs for the games? Make your own! ACE’s game has the unique ability for you to use any voice you like for the voice overs. Want to record yourself saying a complicated word? NO problem!
Recommended by teachers, loved by kids!
¨How do kids learn even faster? Spelling Bug´s words are grouped in phonics families. Each level include phonetically similar words like: ´one´, ´done´,´gone´,
´none´. In this way kids learn a new concept - easy to remember and a very powerful skill to apply to other words too!¨
Teachers report amazing results - even with struggling learners.
Students enter school eager, vulnerable, and excited about learning. But too soon, many find themselves struggling with reading. Because reading is key to success in school, poor readers face a trajectory of failure and decreasing motivation: Students who are not at least moderately fluent in reading by 3rd grade are unlikely to graduate from high school (Slavin, Karweit, Wasik, Madden, & Dolan, 1994).
Young learners need to feel successful and empowered. But I have observed many 1st grade classrooms as a researcher and consultant, and reading instruction in a typical 1st grade class reveals a number of problems that can lead to frustration and reluctance. Too many precious minutes are spent waiting for another student to respond, working with material that's either too easy or too difficult, or doing unproductive, boring activities.
Can reading instruction become more efficient, fun, and successful? Indeed it can. In fact, recent brain research suggests that phonics instruction must change, because early instruction determines how the brain organizes itself for reading.
Many studies have established that phonemic awareness (the ability to identify the individual sounds in words) and phonics (the representation of those sounds with letters) are essential for skilled reading (Adams, 1994; Ehri, 2004; Torgesen et al., 2001). In an effort to insert phonics back into the curriculum for early readers, publishers have created curriculums containing worksheets and scripted lessons that introduce phonics in a tedious and unproductive way. But phonics instruction does not have to be tedious. It can be joyful and meaningful.
Louisa Moats (1998) put her finger on a crucial problem:
One of the most fundamental flaws found in almost all phonics programs, including traditional ones, is that they teach the code backwards. That is, they go from letter to sound instead of from sound to letter…. The print-to-sound (conventional phonics) approach leaves gaps, invites confusion, and creates inefficiencies. (pp. 44–45)
If Moats's words had been taken to heart, phonics instruction today would focus on students constructing words before trying to read them—as I believe it should.
Recent research by neuroscientists and cognitive scientists provides ample data to support this turnaround (Aylward et al., 2003; Ehri, 2002; Simos et al., 2002). These studies point to the fact that the foundation of reading is speech and that the organization of reading skills in the brain must be built on this foundation.
Phonemes are not processed by the auditory system alone; they are articulated sounds. The powerful motor system of speech sequences and remembers phonemes. (How do you remember a phone number until you can write it down? You say it to yourself.) The process of learning to read should start with students constructing words—because this process requires them to pronounce words first.
What does pronunciation have to do with reading? Linnea Ehri (2002) shed light on how readers can look at thousands of words and instantly recognize their meaning. According to Ehri, the sight of a word triggers its pronunciation, and it is this pronunciation that has been stored in memory for convenient access along with the meaning of the word. Our lips may not be moving when we read, but our brains are "talking." Ehri's studies show that trying to recognize thousands of words from their visual appearance alone (pattern recognition) is almost impossible. Speech memory is the key.
What Brain Research Shows
Because reading is a relatively new human skill, evolutionarily speaking, the brain is not preorganized for reading. It has to figure out how to organize this new information—where to store the different elements involved in reading and how to connect them instantly. Genetics plays a role here, as does the brain's response to injury or illness. But for most children, their first experiences with letters and words dictate how the brain establishes neural networks that may become habitual pathways as reading skills develop.
Sally Shaywitz (2003) and others have determined with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) imaging technology that these networks are composed of three essential elements of reading: the pronunciation, meaning, and visual appearance of words. In good readers, these elements are typically stored in the left hemisphere; this connects the new visual experiences to areas already devoted to speech and comprehension.
Other studies (Aylward et al., 2003; Simons et al., 2002) have shown that dyslexics tend to activate right-hemisphere areas at some neural distance from where speech and comprehension reside in the left hemisphere. When dyslexic learners receive intense phonemically based intervention, however, as reading improves this activation tends to move to the left hemisphere, looking more like the activation pattern typical of strong readers. This finding suggests that early reading instruction can profoundly affect how the brain organizes this skill.
Decoding and Encoding
There are two ways to provide systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics: decoding (reading words) and encoding (constructing words). Each approach involves a very different sequence of brain activation. To read an unfamiliar word, such as cat, a reader would go through the following sequence using decoding (moving from print to speech):
Look at the first letter, c. What sound does it make? Do the same with a and t.
Blend the sounds together. Does it sound like a familiar word?
If the learner successfully pronounces cat, he or she will, finally, recognize its meaning. (Oh! That word is cat.)
In contrast, to write cat using encoding (speech to print), a beginning reader goes through this sequence:
Access the word's meaning (activating speech and comprehension).
Pronounce the word and segment the sounds (analyzing articulation).
Remember which letter stands for the sound /c/ ? (and /a/ and /t/).
Assemble c, a, and t into cat.
Read what is written.
Several points about decoding make it a less-than-ideal place to begin reading instruction:
Visual processing is activated first. A reader relies on analyzing and recognizing patterns, contours, shapes, and configurations (typically right-hemisphere processes). The reader achieves pronunciation and meaning only after successful visual analysis.
Retrieval of knowledge about the alphabet code involves letter-to-sound associations. This process involves visually deconstructing a word that has already been written by someone else; often these words use more advanced rules of spelling or break the rules. When a student is trying to learn the alphabetic principle, it's confusing to encounter exceptions.
Instructional activities tend to be divorced from meaningful experiences with text. Exercises often involve visually analyzing lists of unrelated words or sentences, such as counting phonemes, underlining blends and digraphs, or copying sentences from the board. Such activities do not elicit the joy of personal construction. They reinforce dependency on the teacher rather than independent learning.
For the following reasons, encoding instruction is a more powerful place to start:
Pronunciation and meaning are immediately activated because the reader must pronounce the word he or she wants to build, either silently or aloud (which typically involves left-hemisphere processing).
The reader segments phonemes primarily by using the motor system of speech, with its superior capability for sequencing and memory.
Retrieval of knowledge about the alphabetic code involves articulated sound-to-letter associations.
Activities involve meaningful interactions with text—primarily assembling letter tiles or using a keyboard, magic slate, or pencil to write dictated words or sentences. The teacher guides instruction of encodable consonant–vowel–consonant words in a systematic way so students gradually build up a repertoire of the 40 letters and digraphs that represent the basic phonemes in English. Neural networks for these 40 paired associations will thus be laid down consistently without the confusion of dealing with more complex spelling patterns. Writing becomes an efficient route to early reading rather than a separate subject.
These activities are empowering. Mastering the code enables a student to write any word. Even if the student does not spell a word perfectly, someone can usually read it. Successful communication makes clear to the student how words get on paper and what reading and writing are all about.
Students are generally eager to read what they have written. Encoding and decoding are both important, and students will have a better chance of developing decoding skills without frustration if they start by reading "decodable" (regularly spelled) words that they themselves have written. If letters are scrambled or missing, the teacher should give a minilesson about correcting the initial encoding.
Dealing successfully with written language as a writer or reader—the task of literacy—requires automatic skill with the alphabetic code. Practice with encoding enhances facility with decoding; they are two halves of the same learning task.
How Instruction Should Change
If encoding instruction truly results in greater phonemic awareness and skills, is more likely to activate speech memory and left-hemisphere processing, and is more efficient and engaging, then why do teachers spend so few minutes of each language arts hour encoding? Why not tip the balance toward more encoding? The activities that build phoneme awareness, such as rhymes, songs, and games that manipulate sounds in words, usually happen in kindergarten and continue into 1st grade for students who have difficulty identifying sounds. All children love to hear books read aloud and have conversations about the pictures and the stories—an essential preparation for reading and writing. When the alphabet is introduced, encoding should come to the fore so that children don't start to lean heavily on visual pattern recognition.
It doesn't take long for most children to master the 40 phonemes and their corresponding graphemes. If a teacher introduces three or four phonemes each week at the beginning of 1st grade, the entire 40 can be covered by Christmas. The teacher needs to pay attention to the natural pace of the class and to which students may require more practice to build automaticity and fluency. Once students have mastered phoneme awareness and the alphabetic code, language arts time can become a balance of reading and writing.
In addition to more time encoding, I suggest these seven changes in phonics instruction.
Deemphasize the names of letters. The only characteristic of a letter that is relevant to reading or writing is its sound. We should refer to letters more frequently by their sounds than by their names. The most frequent spelling error in 1st grade is the confusion of the name of a letter with its sound, such as "rm" for arm and "nhr" for nature.
Stop counting phonemes. If children are assembling letter tiles, writing, or using a computer to make words, they simply need to associate a letter (or letters) with each sound their mouth makes as they pronounce the word.
Have students pay attention to their mouth movements. Explain how the mouth strings sounds together like beads on a string. The more students pay attention to what their mouths do when they make a speech sound, the more likely they are to remember the association of sound to letter.
Systematically teach one way to represent each of the basic 40 sounds. There are thousands of encodable words students can sound out and spell with these—even big words, like fantastic.
Avoid having students copy sentences. Some curriculums instruct the teacher to write designated sentences on the chalkboard and have students copy each sentence, sometimes filling in a blank space with any word from a list. Students can accomplish this task mindlessly. They may remember the visual appearance of some words, but that won't aid long-term memory. Students are not using the code at all, merely practicing penmanship and copying. If we dictated phrases or sentences, students would activate verbal memory, pronounce the words silently, apply the alphabetic code, and produce the words without having to look back and forth at the board.
Move beyond visually identifying blends and digraphs. Some curriculums have teachers write a list of words on the chalkboard and ask a volunteer to identify a consonant blend in each word: 19 children wait, while Johnny tries to visually analyze a word like flip and figure out the blend. How does naming and identifying fl as a "consonant blend" help Johnny? Instead, Johnny could encode and write the word flip. If he fails to hear and feel the fact that his mouth has made two sounds, the teacher could say, "Say it again and feel what your mouth does after you say /f/." Johnny would then learn the concept of blending physically and store it in his brain with information about pronunciation. Similarly, underlining digraphs does not activate the crucial link between the letters and the articulated sound. It makes more sense to introduce digraphs systematically as part of the set of symbols that represent the 40 speech sounds.
Encourage spelling by analyzing sounds. When students ask how to spell a word, the reply should be "Sound it out!" If a student can't identify a sound, help that learner by pointing out that his or her mouth is moving differently to make the sound. Teachers can help correct the most commonly misspelled words, but they should introduce spelling rules and "outlaw words" gradually as students become fluent with the code.
Research on Encoding
Most studies of phonics instruction have primarily examined decoding instruction (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Torgesen et al., 2001). In one study that did examine encoding instruction, Torgesen (2004) studied 1st graders identified as at risk for reading failure. In small groups, students received instruction using two different methods. One method focused students' attention on what their lips and mouth were doing as they produced speech sounds. The other, using primarily encoding instruction, systematically introduced the 40 phonemes and taught children to associate sounds with finger strokes on a computer keyboard to find the corresponding letters, and to type dictated words and sentences.
Students in both groups showed significant gains (of two full standard deviations) in phonemic reading skills, particularly on word-attack and word-recognition skills. Their gains for fluency were almost as strong as those for accuracy. Reading comprehension scores were higher than expected on the basis of the students' estimated general verbal ability.
We need more discussion about and more research into the advantages of incorporating more encoding into early reading instruction. The "reading wars" still rumble below the surface. Teachers who honor joyful learning, construction, and discovery are naturally put off by worksheets and counting phonemes. But throwing out phonics is not the solution. Instead, phonics instruction should be changed to produce more successful readers.
Adams, M. J. (1994). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aylward, E. H., Richards, T. L., Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W. E., Field, K. M., Grimme, A. C., et al. (2003). Instructional treatment associated with changes in brain activation in children with dyslexia. Neurology, 61, 212–219.
Ehri, L. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, Number 1: Learning and Teaching Reading, 1(1), 7–28.
Ehri, L. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 153–186). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
Moats, L. (1998, Spring/Summer). Teaching decoding. American Educator, 42–49, 95–96.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf.
Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M., et al. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203–1213.
Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Wasik, B. A., Madden, N. A., & Dolan, L. J. (1994). Success for all: A comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing early school failure (pp. 175–205). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., Conway, T., et al. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from intervention research. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), Voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 374–375). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
The Science of Word Recognition
or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bouma
Evidence from the last 20 years of work in cognitive psychology indicate that we use the letters within a word to recognize a word. Many typographers and other text enthusiasts I’ve met insist that words are recognized by the outline made around the word shape. Some have used the term bouma as a synonym for word shape, though I was unfamiliar with the term. The term bouma appears in Paul Saenger’s 1997 book Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. There I learned to my chagrin that we recognize words from their word shape and that “Modern psychologists call this image the ‘Bouma shape.’”
Words are recognized as complete units. We see words as a complete patterns rather than the sum of letter parts. Some claim that the information used to recognize a word is the pattern of ascending, descending, and neutral characters. Another formulation is to use the envelope created by the outline of the word. The word patterns are recognizable to us as an image because we have seen each of the patterns many times before. James Cattell (1886) was the first psychologist to propose this as a model of word recognition. Cattell is recognized as an influential founder of the field of psycholinguistics, which includes the scientific study of reading.
Cattell supported the word shape model because it provided the best explanation of the available experimental evidence. Cattell had discovered a fascinating effect that today we call the Word Superiority Effect. He presented letter and word stimuli to subjects for a very brief period of time (5-10ms), and found that subjects were more accurate at recognizing the words than the letters. He concluded that subjects were more accurate at recognizing words in a short period of time because whole words are the units that we recognize.
The same effect was replicated in 1969 by Reicher. He presented strings of letters – half the time real words, half the time not – for brief periods. The subjects were asked if one of two letters were contained in the string, for example D or K. Reicher found that subjects were more accurate at recognizing D when it was in the context of WORD than when in the context of ORWD. This supports the word shape model because the word allows the subject to quickly recognize the familiar shape. Once the shape has been recognized, then the subject can deduce the presence of the correct letter long after the stimulus presentation.
The second key piece of experimental data to support the word shape model is that lowercase text is read faster than uppercase text. Woodworth (1938) was the first to report this finding in his influential textbook Experimental Psychology. This finding has been confirmed more recently by Smith (1969) and Fisher (1975). Participants were asked to read comparable passages of text, half completely in uppercase text and half presented in standard lowercase text. In each study, participants read reliably faster with the lowercase text by a 5-10% speed difference. This supports the word shape model because lowercase text enables unique patterns of ascending, descending, and neutral characters. When text is presented in all uppercase, all letters have the same text size and thus are more difficult and slower to read.
The patterns of errors that are missed while proofreading text provide the third key piece of experimental evidence to support the word shape model. Subjects were asked to carefully read passages of text for comprehension and at the same time mark any misspelling they found in the passage. The passage had been carefully designed to have an equal number of two kinds of misspellings: misspellings that are consistent with word shape, and misspellings that are inconsistent with word shape. A misspelling that is consistent with word shape is one that contains the same patterns of ascenders, descenders, and neutral characters, while a misspelling that is inconsistent with word shape changes the pattern of ascenders, descenders, and neutral characters. If test is the correctly spelled word, tesf would be an example of a misspelling consistent with word shape and tesc would be an example of a misspelling inconsistent with word shape. The word shape model would predict that consistent word shapes would be caught less often than an inconsistent word shape because words are more confusable if they have the same shape. Haber & Schindler (1981) and Monk & Hulme (1983) found that misspellings consistent with word shape were twice as likely to be missed as misspellings inconsistent with word shape.
The fourth piece of evidence supporting the word shape model is that it is difficult to read text in alternating case. AlTeRnAtInG case is where the letters of a word change from uppercase to lowercase multiple times within a word. The word shape model predicts that this is difficult because it gives a pattern of ascending, descending, and neutral characters that is different than exists in a word in its natural all lowercase form. Alternating case has been shown to be more difficult than either lowercase or uppercase text in a variety of studies. Smith (1969) showed that it slowed the reading speed of a passage of text, Mason (1978) showed that the time to name a word was slowed, Pollatsek, Well, & Schindler (1975) showed that same-difference matching was hindered, and Meyer & Gutschera (1975) showed that category decision times were decreased.
Advanced Reading Technology, Microsoft Corporation
When you type in Google search, “music being taken out of schools”, you get barraged with an ongoing debate about the justification of music in education. Unable to be quantified, music knowledge is not making the budget.
But by taking away music, you take away an education into one of the five basic senses of what it means to be human - the ability to hear. Music is not just a feeling. It attracts us, it repels us, it makes us do things without our even knowing it on a very subconscious level. If it can control us so strongly, isn’t it worth the effort to learn and explore our understanding of it?
Human life is governed by a finite amount of time, and music marks the succession of one moment to the next. At it’s roots it is a wondrous display of physics in action. By learning to play instruments through hearing or seeing, a child is learning about timing. The power of sound and its relationship to silence. How to seize an audience of people by creating changing moods of stillness, joy, anger, sadness and so many other emotions simply by altering the pace and key of a sound.
If music isn’t making the cut in schools, then it is up to the parents of the future to step forward and foster that education in their own children. Music is a magical and radical source of inspiration. Our goal in the Notespace apps is to convey that message to children. To foster a love of music that will guide their interest to further study and play with music into their adulthood. It is no secret that music increases seratonin levels. In a world full of fear mongering, finding a peaceful calm state will be harder and harder. In order to foster a bright future for our children, we need to nurture outlets that are positive and relaxing. We feel that so much anxiety and attention deficit problems in kids these days is a direct result of the information overload that children are bombarded with on a daily basis. Most of that information is negative and fear driven and we think music provides positive tools to navigate through these wild times.
So we are proud to present Notespace Beat, a musical playground for kids to enjoy and explore. Notespace Beat aims to not be a hardcore education item, but more to infuse into entertainment based games, music concepts. They believe if you foster the love of something, study will follow. They believe that learning music teaches you to think about life through a positive lens. It opens a new perception on how to navigate through this world a little easier. Therefore, they have created a cartoon universe of gameplay involving: timing, intonation, beat matching, music creation on turntables, silly and cool characters that read to you, sing along soundtracks and synthesizers that glow in rainbows.
Notespace Beat loves music and wants you to feel that love too! So come
comic activity book for Android and iOS tablets! It’s free to play with a
single unlock everything fee of 9.99$ or if players choose to try their
luck at playing and winning their way through, we have smaller unlock
fees of 99¢ if they need help in specific areas.
So take off your body and leave your clothes
at the door for here they are useless, you won’t
need them anymore. For everything here is
made of sounds and of rhythms, dancing on
light in a rainbow of prisms! - Amorse
The ability to think in 3-dimensional, multi-sensory pictures is a talent that all Dyslexics share. It can, however, cause problems and confusion when it comes to 2-dimensional symbols and abstract words.
There are two basic kinds of learners: Verbal and Nonverbal. Intelligence does not play a role in this distinction—it is simply a difference in learning and thinking styles.
Verbal learners mainly think through the sound of words. In their mind, they hear their voice speaking to them. Verbal thought is linear and follows the structure of language. Thinking verbally consists of composing mental sentences, one word at a time, at about the same speed as speech.
Nonverbal learners mainly think in pictures. They identify words and objects by viewing them from infinite visual perspectives. They think with 3-dimensional, multi-sensory images that evolve and grow as the thought process adds more information or concepts. This thought process happens so much faster than verbal thinking that it is subliminal - explaining why dyslexics are often unaware of errors. "Picture-thinkers" experience little, if any, internal "dialogue" sounds, therefore, reading through phonics is nearly impossible, always frustrating, and sometimes painful.
Spelling Bug is effective because it works with word boumas. Giving the ¨Picture-thinker¨ a way to start visualising words.
The Dyslexia Dilemma
A picture thinker can easily "picture a meaning" for words that represent objects and action verbs like: chair, pencil, run, and jump. However, they are unconsciously challenged when faced with certain abstract words like: the, was, if, and, were, in, on, as, or, that...and at least 209 others just like them (commonly known as “sight words”).
Those words are at the root of reading difficulties for a picture-thinker. With Spelling Bug we tie those words to other words in the same phonetic family or word group. Since picture-thinkers have a strong sense of logic, this strategy proves to be very effective. When verbs like run and jump are presented in the same level in the games as abstract words like up. It is well noted that children with dyslexia will tell you that it is the little words that trip them up.
With no picture to process for each sight word, the reading material quickly loses meaning - causing confusion, frustration, and fatigue.
Consider, for a moment, that up to 60% of any written paragraph contains words that DO NOT allow a "picture thinker" to create a picture. Imagine, as a person who thinks in pictures, trying to obtain the real meaning of a paragraph when 60% of the words are words with which you cannot think!
Spelling Bug offers interesting and memorable visual cues to entertain the picture-thinker and offer them the possibility to overcome many of their spelling difficulties while playing.
The fact that they can play through lessons is a big reason why they learn so fast, because playing is natures way of teaching!
ACE Edutainment Apps receive family-friendly status!!
To expand knowledge you can add your own words and even record your own voice to be used in the game
ACE Edutainment Apps receive family-friendly status!!
To expand knowledge you can add your own words and even record your own voice to be used in the game
ACE Edutainment Apps receive family-friendly status!!
To expand knowledge you can add your own words and even record your own voice to be used in the game
"With over 2 million apps to choose from, discovering family friendly apps is a daunting task. Since July, over 100 companies have pledged to let parents KNOW What’s Inside their apps by meeting high standards of privacy and safety. Soon, parents and educators will find a home on momswithapps.com to find and sort apps from these award-winning companies.” (Sara Kloek, ACT)"
ACE Edutainment Apps Inc. is the newest participant of the Moms with Apps Know What’s Inside® program, a part of ACT | The App Association. This program is dedicated to helping family-friendly app developers implement best practices around privacy and comply with new privacy rules including the new COPPA rules that took effect July 1st. The program provides developers with guidance on best practices, but requires each developer to implement those best practices in order to display the Know What’s Inside® seal on their apps.
ACE Edutainment Apps Inc. is also the newest member of the ACT | The App Association and Moms with Apps. Ace Edutainment Apps are made by teachers "We understand that not all kids learn in the same way but we know that all kids like to play!", says founder, Charine Gey Van Pittius, Educational Specialist (Ed.S) and C.E.O. of ACE Edutainment Apps.
Charine says, “I’m proud to be a member of ACT and Moms with Apps. I look forward to working together with ACT, MWA and other developers to bring forward transparent and beneficial apps into the hands of consumers. My apps include Bug Goop: Sight Words and Spelling Bug: 2nd Grade Phonics which you can find on the iTunes, Google Play and Amazon, stores.”
Member developers pledge to follow all applicable laws, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which went into effect on Monday, July 1, 2013. Members feature up-to-date privacy policies and disclosures within the app stores, benefiting both developers and the children we serve by offering a central location for the community to find and promote apps that respect online privacy.
“Our community of developers are creating transformational apps that are improving the educational lives of children around the world,” said Morgan Reed, executive director of the ACT | The App Association. “These developers are committed to maintaining trusted relationships with parents. Through the Know What’s Inside® program, we provide children’s app developers with tools and guidance to strengthen those relationships, while awarding a trusted seal for apps that meet our high standards.”
“One of the biggest services Moms With Apps can provide for parents, and children, is to support a community of developers who value how to make apps with privacy, trust, and transparency in mind, and understand relevant regulations. ” said Lorraine Akemann, founder of Moms with Apps.
MWA will establish the industry standards and best practices for transparency, regulatory compliance, and promotion within apps directed for children under the age of 13. The community will look for and develop tools to assist with targeted promotions of apps, crowd sourced beta testing, and other helpful tools for developers as technology continues to evolve.
Moms with Apps is the largest community of family friendly app developers in the world and a part of the ACT | The App Association.
Kid Friendly Apps
Know What´s Inside