Products by Gary Adams:
If you are looking for information about purchasing Research on Direct Instruction, The Comprehensive Test of Adaptive Behavior, or The Normative Adaptive Behavior Checklist, hit this link.

When Jan Hartleben Slusser and I wrote this 1998-1999 story, we were pleased with the results. The Phonics Game dropped their false claim of improving children's grades one full grade number in a short amount of time. The two main people in The Phonics Game fraud (Greg Cynaumon and Myrna Culbreath) disappeared from public view.

Those changes did not last long. I am embarrassed that I didn't track what happened in the last four years. Now, thanks to an email from Micheal Fanning, who remembered this report, I came back to review home reading programs again as well Mr. Cynaumon and Ms. Culbreath. Micheal Fanning deserves the credit for proving the impetus of this updated report.

One major change was that A Better Way of Learning, the publisher of The Phonics Game that had an extremely poor Better Business Bureau rating http://search.bbb.org/search.html, was taken over by ImaginEngine Direct Publishing in June, 2002. Then came the shocking finding: instead of no companies giving more than the typical 30- to 60-day guarantees in March 2000, The Phonics Game and Hooked on Phonics returned to promising a full-grade improvement (as of 5/21/04). Myrna Culbreath has created a new product Phonicsopoly with a phony story that there is a federally funded study in which students made huge reading achievement gains after playing Phonicsopoly for only 16 hours. On this web site, I am offering Myrna Culbreath $1,000,000 if she can prove that claim. (Almost three months after this offer (6/7/04), Ms. Culbreath has not accepted my challenge.)

To my dismay, Greg Cynaumon continued to expand his scams to many new fields. For this reason, Greg Cynaumon's name has been reinserted in this story. On this web site, I am offering Greg Cynaumon a $1,000,000 Challenge if he can prove five of his claims. (Almost three months after this offer (6/7/04), Mr. Cynaumon has not accepted my challenge.)

Doesn't it sound depressing? Except for the immediate and rapid drop in sales of The Phonics Game, the same two culprits have continued to scam the public and Hooked on Phonics and The Phonics Game promise the expectation of full-grade improvement without any evidence. When you read the following report, please keep this new update information in mind.

Background of Original 1998-1999 Report

(Please note that almost all of the web links in this story were removed by the company so we deactivated those links.)

The Educational Mirage Award is given to popular educational programs that we believe falsely claim research support. Unlike other fields such as business, the field of education has lacked an objective watchdog group. Because of this situation, many companies make outrageous, unsubstantiated claims. Our web site attempts to warn consumers (parents, teachers, school administrators, school board members, and educational advocates) about companies promoting products with questionable claims. The original report on The Phonics Game, the winner of the first Educational Mirage Award, was published on our web site in November 1998.

A Better Way of Learning, the publisher of The Phonics Game, had many complaints about our original report. We offered to pull that report and review the information that they submitted to us; in return, we expected that they would answer our questions. Surprisingly, before we received their list of over 20 complaints about our report, they removed approximately two-thirds of their web site within a few days of our agreement. (We have marked "REMOVED" after the sections in our report that they removed from their web site.) Luckily, we preserved the information that they deleted. We had planned to meet with them, but we could not establish "ground rules" for discussing what they called "proprietary research," a term that they never explained. Finally, we asked them to explain just 8 of many issues. They responded with documentation about only one issue in regards to our allegation about creating false quotes attributed to educational magazines. What we received showed that we appear to be correct about this allegation. They refused to respond to the 7 other  issues.

The following is the retraction statement that Wm. Blair Armstrong, President of A Better Way of Learning, demanded that we post on our web site by February 15, 1999.

"Because current information answers questions previously raised on our website and in our publicly distributed press releases about The Phonics Game, we are retracting our statements. Our earlier claims are incorrect and were based on information that was outdated and erroneous. We apologize for any inconvenience they may have caused you."

Our Response

Our earlier claims were correct. Because of the information that they provided us, we have uncovered even more questionable practices that will be described in this report.

How popular is The Phonics Game? Approximately 1,000,000 people have purchased or used The Phonics Game based on web, print, radio, and television advertising that the company now seems to say is outdated. (The 1,000,000 figure is based on information on their web site www.phonicsgame.com/OnlineOrdering/83/faqs.htm). The Phonics Game officials distancing themselves from their own advertising is a consistent theme in this report.

The two questions we are asked most frequently are:

·         "Why did you do this report?

·         "Are you promoting your own reading program?"

Our interest in doing this report has little to do with our company. It was done as a public service. It probably shows the quality of our research reviews for school districts and parents, but that was not our motivation for doing this review. We did it because A Better Way of Learning staff kept refusing to answer our questions about their claims. To those who state that we are just promoting our reading program, we do not sell a reading program and we are not affiliated with other companies that sell reading programs.

We have highlighted changes, new information, and recent developments in this revised report using boldface type. We will address the concerns sent to us by A Better Way of Learning staff in this revised report. Since March 1997, we have collected over 600 pages of web, print, and audio and video information. If the company continues to question our statements, we will post full documentation on our web site for clarification purposes.

Note: A reminder before you read this report. The Educational Mirage Award is given to products with what we consider questionable claims of effectiveness. It has nothing to do with phonics instruction. We received several e-mails and letters from people who thought that we were anti-phonics. Our selection of The Phonics Game was made because of what we believe are exaggerated claims.

Also, one of the major persons in our report contacted us in March 2000 and requested that we remove his name from this report. In turn, he stated that he would provide us with further information and cooperate with the appropriate persons. He has been very forthright and for that reason, we have removed his name. In this report, he is now referred to as "Mr. X" or "Dr. X" in our report. [That was in March 2000 and now four years later, it is obvious that Mr./"Dr." Greg Cynaumon lied to me and went from scam to scam. For that reason, His name has been returned to this story. Go to http://www.edresearch.com/ for a complete report of his other scams]

The decision to post this revised report is the sole responsibility of Gary Adams, Ph.D.

Introduction

Home reading programs have become big business. In the late 1980's, the Hooked on Phonics program exploded into the media with catchy ads. By 1991, Gateway Educational Products, the maker of the Hooked on Phonics program, was the second largest radio advertiser of any product ($41 million) and sales rose to over $175 million per year. Their ad campaign provided testimonials targeting specific groups such as parents of beginning and remedial readers and adults with poor reading skills. Their ads claiming quick improvement went well beyond their research proof. After the Federal Trade Commission's cease-and-desist order and a critical Dateline story, the public became aware of their unsubstantiated claims. Sales plummeted and the company filed for bankruptcy. We should have noted in our original report that the company was sold to Gateway Learning Corporation who is marketing a new Hooked on Phonics product. Currently, the new company appears to make no specific effectiveness claims. [This statement was made in March 2000. Four years later, the Hooked on Phonics web site http://www.hop.com/ makes the claim of a one-grade improvement.]

Now a new reading program, The Phonics Game marketed by A Better Way of Learning Corporation, seems to be copying the Hooked on Phonics advertising strategy, especially with unsubstantiated claims. A Better Way of Learning states that they have not copied the original Hooked on Phonics in any way. However, we believe that their advertising strategy is similar. In our original report, we should have predicted that the next marketing step based on the previous Hooked on Phonics marketing strategy would be television infomercials. Since our report (and possibly before), A Better Way of Learning began running infomercials.

The company claims that students, after only 18 hours of using The Phonics Game,  improve one full letter-grade (e.g., a D student becomes a C student) and students also improve their IQ scores by 10 points. The current unsubstantiated claim is to improve intelligence. After our original report, we were surprised that the company would post a new claim on their web site: "According to A Better Way of Learning Director of Education, Barbara Meserve, by the time a child has completed The Phonics Game, and read all 10 Phonetic Readers in the series, ‘They will have the phonics skills to confidently read books at their grade level, or higher.’." This new claim is probably more outrageous than previous claims. This claim was removed after we reported it.

As outrageous as these claims seem, sales of The Phonics Game at $200+ (now $300) per game have generated over $50 million in sales. This figure is based on a recent brochure. One thing is clear. Although its marketers can't prove their claims, The Phonics Game certainly helps fill the pocketbooks of those who are promoting it. The Phonics Game has earned the first Educational Mirage Award as a popular educational program with unsubstantiated claims. In the following review, it will be shown that the company cannot provide proof of effectiveness.

The marketing strategy for The Phonics Game seems to be based on first placing ads on Christian radio stations and talk shows, such as the Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlessinger. Since our original report, the company removed all references to Paul Harvey, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Schlessinger from their web site in the first week of December 1998. On approximately February 3, 1999, the endorsements returned and then they were removed again. A reason why the company advertises on Christian radio stations may be the increasing number of parents who homeschool their children. In the second phase of advertising, local talk show hosts and announcers give testimonials about using the program. Recently, The Phonics Game has started the third phase involving television commercials with an endorsement by Alex Trebek, the host of the TV game show Jeopardy, and advertisements on the Nickelodeon and other channels. Since our original report, Mr. Trebek’s presence on The Phonics Game web site has changed dramatically. When we published the report, opening The Phonics Game site led to an Alex Trebek audio introduction. The audio introduction, a video, and many web pages involving Mr. Trebek were removed after publication of our report. The new web site contains a footnote that Mr. Trebek is a paid spokesman. Also, in the latest marketing phase, Mr. Trebek and Mr. Cynaumon are in a television infomercial. It appears that the infomercials have stopping airing, at least in the Seattle WA area.

Of course, as long as the testimonials seem within reason there is nothing wrong with this type of advertising. However, early ads claimed that students who used the program for only 18 hours improved their grades dramatically. Calls were made to the company almost two years ago asking for proof and several company representatives gave the same tenor of response, "Whole language reading instruction doesn't work, but phonics instruction works and we have a great phonics program." When we requested research evidence, company representatives said that they would send the evidence, but instead they sent only advertisements. When research evidence was requested through their web site on two occasions, a representative from A Better Way of Learning forwarded us research summaries about phonics instruction by two reading experts on March 21 and 22, 1997. The authors of these summaries were contacted and neither author knew about The Phonics Game. They said that they did not endorse the product and were upset with the company for creating an illusion of endorsements.

The Phonics Game radio and television ads starting in the spring of 1998 cited a study showing academic improvement when students use The Phonics Game. Although the company started in 1995, this appears to be the first study conducted. This means that possibly three years of ads touting one-grade level improvement had no research evidence. Oddly, this study did not even examine the impact of The Phonics Game on grade-improvement. When contacted, a company representative sent a study by JK Educational Associates. Information about the quality of this study will be described later.

Also, the company claimed that after using The Junior Phonics Game, parents could expect a 10-point increase in their child's IQ score. When the company was called about proof of that claim, a company representative gave the following vague statement, "I think that UCLA did a study with Chicago kids." He said that he would send the study, but instead he sent an ad. When we contacted the web site, Susan Holladay, a Phonics Game consultant, responded on April 27, 1997, "I have heard of that study-I will see if corporate has a copy for you, at least of the overview." At approximately the same time, we contacted a national radio talk show host about this claim. After she got in touch with the company, it appeared that they changed most, but not all, of their ads. Later, the claim was shifted from a 10-point IQ increase to an unspecified increase. In December 1998, the company denied that they ever made that claim, but we have previous E-mail and interviews by company representatives. More documentation on this point will be given later.

We contacted the Federal Trade Commission about the questionable advertising claims. In response, a local FTC representative said that he would send the company an informal letter of caution with a copy of the Hooked on Phonics cease-and-desist decree. The representative sent us a copy of that cease-and–desist decree. After publication of our original report, the FTC representative said that he might not have sent the letter and the decree that he thought he had sent. Because of uncertainty about this issue, we are retracting our original statement that a letter was sent to the company.

Several representatives from A Better Way of Learning stated that because they provide a 60-day money-back guarantee, consumers are protected. Based on Federal Trade Commission guidelines (www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm), we believe that this position is incorrect. The following is an excerpt from those guidelines:

"Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a ‘reasonable basis’ for the claims. A ‘reasonable basis’ means objective evidence that supports the claim. The kind of evidence depends on the claim. At a minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says that it has. For example, the statement ‘Two out of three doctors recommend ABC Pain Reliever’ must be supported by a reliable survey to that effect. If the ad isn't specific, the FTC looks at several factors to determine what level of proof is necessary, including what experts in the field think is needed to support the claim. In most cases, ads that make health or safety claims must be supported by ‘competent and reliable scientific evidence’ -- tests, studies, or other scientific evidence that has been evaluated by people qualified to review it. In addition, any tests or studies must be conducted using methods that experts in the field accept as accurate."

The FTC guidelines also state that testimonials and money-back guarantees are not sufficient. The FTC guidelines are the basis for our continued questioning of their claims.

Because A Better Way of Learning officials have consistently stated that we have misinterpreted FTC guidelines, we requested a FTC interpretation. Based on the FTC response, we believe that our interpretation is correct. The representative on February 11, 1999 wrote,

"The presence of a money-back guarantee does not affect the need to have substantiation to support any effectiveness claims made for a product or service. Rather the money-back guarantee is simply another claim that must be truthful to avoid violating Section 5 of the FTC Act."

The People

The following is an investigation of two key Phonics Game people. Myrna Culbreath was described as the main author in interviews on The Phonics Game web site. Originally, we described Ms. Culbreath as an "employee" and the company objected. As a co-author, she may not have technically been an employee when our report was published. However, the company did not state if she had been an employee in the past. After publication of our original report, all references to her were removed from their web site. Fortunately, we retained her interviews.

In interviews, Myrna Culbreath says that she originally created a speed-reading program for college professors and students, executives, and professionals, but found that many participants did not have basic reading skills. For example, she described a top engineer at a nuclear plant who only had minimal reading skills. The Phonics Game was created, she said, for these people. Given the highly selective process and high academic requirements, the idea of college professors, physicians, and other professionals lacking basic reading skills seems to stretch credibility. Another example of probable exaggeration was a person with law and dental degrees who "couldn't read for more than five or ten minutes in a row without about to conk out." She says that after playing only two card games, he was no longer sleepy when he read. Also, she said his spelling and handwriting improved.

Culbreath also says that her program is for people with foreign accents. She says in her interview that after one weekend of instruction, a person totally lost his Spanish accent thanks to The Phonics Game.

For parents who wonder if their child has a reading problem, Culbreath says that a first grader should be able to read the newspaper by the end of first grade. If the child can’t read the newspaper, Culbreath suggests purchasing The Phonics Game. Of course, newspapers are written well above a first grade level.

Because of these and other statements, we decided to investigate Culbreath’s background. A company representative said that Culbreath developed the speed-reading course when she worked for the University of Colorado. DeLaris Carpenter, the Director of Student Academic Services at that university, has never heard of her. Carpenter has worked there since the early 1980's. Also, other staff members did not recognize her name.

Myrna Culbreath says in her web interviews that her program has revolutionized reading instruction, but there is not one reference about her as an educator or The Phonics Game in any educational publication. Given Culbreath’s complaints about others’ reading and writing skills, our search of her name on the Internet found several interesting reviews of her fiction writing. Book reviewers have not been impressed by her writing skills as a co-author of several Star Trek books. Her books have been universally panned because of poor grammar and spelling. For example, Lewis Stiller described her writing in his review of Prometheus Design: "The authors do not feel bound by conventional laws of punctuation either. They are addicted to the ellipsis, and seem to hyphenate randomly." Her books received the lowest scores possible on readability according to the TrekNews web site. Also, in a rating by the Oxford University Library Service of the 179 Star Trek publications, movies, and TV episodes, her book Triangle ranked 177th and Prometheus Design ranked 178th.

The other prominent person in The Phonics Game advertising is "Dr." Cynaumon. His profession is unclear in their advertising. In various places, Mr. Cynaumon describes himself as a

• sociologist (audio interview),
• child development specialist (print advertising and web site),
• school psychologist (web sites, audio interview, and television show interviews),
• Minirth-Meier therapist (web sites),
• educational therapist (inside cover of The Junior Phonics Game and web sites),
• educational psychologist (audio interviews, print advertising, and web sites),
• psychologist (television interviews, audio interviews, web sites, and print advertising), and
• child psychologist (personal communication, television and radio interviews, web sites, and print advertising)

In an interview on The Phonics Game web site, he gives the illusion of being an outside expert (a school psychologist) from California. This interview was removed. The California Department of Education says that he is not; there is no Mr. Cynaumon listed as a certified school psychologist. In reality, Coleman Kane, the Chief Operating Officer of A Better Way of Learning, admitted that Mr. Cynaumon was a former vice president of the company. When questioned about his doctorate in the spring of 1998, Mr. Cynaumon became evasive and said that he received his doctorate in child psychology from Sierra University. Later, we questioned his degree for two reasons. First, his name was not listed in Dissertations Abstracts, a publication describing doctoral dissertations. Second, he said that he received his degree from Sierra University, but a review indicated that there is no current university by that name. His response was that the school did exist, but he refused to respond to any more questions about his background. He even refused to give the name of the city where Sierra University had been located.

His unusual reaction led to further investigation. A search of the Los Angeles Times' archives showed only two articles about Sierra University. It was described by a Los Angeles Times reporter as a "a correspondence school." Both stories were about a fraud lawsuit brought by a student against Sierra University for poor quality instruction, including post-graduate courses taught by instructors with only community college experience. A representative from the California Bureau of Private and Post-Secondary Education stated that Sierra University had a short history in California and was decertified in 1995 due to not meeting minimal standards. Because it was located in Costa Mesa, we contacted Costa Mesa Pilot newspaper reporters for more information about Sierra University, but they had never heard of it.

It appears that Mr. Cynaumon was illegally using several professional titles. He says that he is a "school psychologist," but according to the California Department of Education he isn't. He says that he is an "educational psychologist" and implies that he is a "marriage, family, and child counselor," but according to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences he isn't. He says that he is a "child psychologist" and "psychologist," but according to the California Board of Psychology he isn't. Because of Mr. Cynaumon's cooperation, we have removed several sections describing problems with Mr. Cynaumon's use of professional titles. It appears that Mr. Cynaumon has stopped his misuse of titles.

Carmen Smith Jr., the attorney for A Better Way of Learning, in a December 3, 1998 letter states, "Neither Myrna Culbreath nor (Mr. Cynaumon) are employed by A Better Way of Learning, Inc. Your statements concerning Ms. Culbreath and (Mr. Cynaumon) and the inferences that either or both of them are connected with ‘The Phonics Game’ is misleading and incorrect." We find this statement confusing. When we were writing our original report, The Phonics Game web site had interviews by both people. In Ms. Culbreath’s interview, she is introduced as the inventor of The Phonics Game. It appears that the same interview is still being used as a radio infomercial by the company today, February 15, 1999 (www.wajl.com/schedule.htm), over 2 1/2 months after Mr. Smith’s letter. Because Ms. Culbreath is listed as a co-copyright owner on The Junior Phonics Game, it appears that she is still connected to the company.

In summary, despite their attorney’s comments, it appears that there is a continued link between A Better Way of Learning officials and Mr. Cynaumon three months after our original report was published.

The Major Claims

The two major questionable claims about The Phonics Game are that (1) after completing The Phonics Game, students will improve one full letter-grade and (2) students will improve their IQ score by 10 points (which was changed later to an unspecified level of IQ improvement). Carmen Smith Jr. states in his letter of December 3, 1998 that, "In your report you refer several times to requests you have made for substantiation of claims. No officer of A Better Way of Learning, Inc. is aware of any requests you have made." We, however, have ongoing correspondence beginning in the spring of 1997 from several A Better Way of Learning, Inc. representatives.

In regard to grade improvements, requests for proof of these claims consistently resulted in company representatives stating then and now that there is a money-back guarantee. The length of the warranty is confusing. In some places, it states 30 days (in a Myrna Culbreath interview) and in other places, it states 60 days. One problem with their warranty is that a grading period may be beyond a 60-day time period. Mr. Cynaumon described the same problem when he discussed his purchase of the Hooked on Phonics kit. He said that by the time he realized that the Hooked on Phonics program was ineffective he had used it beyond the warranty deadline and couldn’t get his money back. In a letter from Barbara Meserve, Director of Education for A Better Way of Learning, she states that the money-back guarantee can also be after one grading period (although originally we could not find this guarantee in any printed material.) Their new web site, posted on approximately February 2, 1999, clarifies their refund policy www.phonicsgame.com/24_promise.htm. According to Barbara Meserve, they really don’t claim that their program results in changes; it is just a money-back guarantee. As stated earlier, the FTC guidelines note that the promise of a money-back guarantee is not enough.

In their new web site, Ms. Meserve makes a new unsubstantiated claim: "According to A Better Way of Learning Director of Education, Barbara Meserve, by the time a child has completed ‘The Phonics Game’, and read all 10 Phonetic Readers in the series, ‘They will have the phonics skills to confidently read books at their grade level, or higher.’ " This new claim is probably more outrageous than previous claims and it was removed. For example, if you were a parent of a 6^th grader with a 2^nd grade reading level, that would mean in only approximately 20 hours of Phonics Game instruction your child would be at or above grade level. The 20-hour estimate is based on the fact that The Phonics Game is supposed to take 18 hours and the 10 mini-booklets would only take 1-2 hours to read. Given our previous critical report, we were stunned that the company would add a new, unsubstantiated, extreme claim.

In summary, A Better Way of Learning is only willing to provide us with undocumented testimonials and only one publicly-available study. Currently, there are no studies to support their contention that The Phonics Game will result in a one grade improvement or improve IQ scores. Therefore, we will examine the only publicly-available Phonics Game study and then a few Phonics Game testimonials.

The Only Publicly-Available Study

Before analyzing this study, it should be remembered that The Phonics Game was introduced in 1995 with many claims and yet this study of effectiveness was conducted approximately three years later.

In the spring of 1998, The Phonics Game radio ads proclaimed that there was a study showing that students who received The Phonics Game improved significantly. Barbara Meserve sent us this report. John Martois, the author of this report, states that The Phonics Game group made significant improvements on some reading scales. However, there are several problems with his conclusions:

• Because there was no comparison group, the change in pretest-posttest scores may not be better than a comparison group who received the regular reading program. The need for a control group is probably the most glaring error in this study. Virtually every research methodology book mentions the need for a control group in experimental research studies. The typical book mentions the reasons described by Campbell and Stanley: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, differential selection, experimental morality, and selection-maturation interaction. Ms. Meserve did not respond to our complaint about this major flaw in the study.
• Martois compared the results to normal expectations, but the students in the experimental group received their regular reading program plus possibly an extra 28 hours of The Phonics Game. This would be equivalent to an extra 1½-2 months of instructional time. Ms. Meserve stated that The Phonics Game was used in place of "usual reading activities." The following is the description in the Martois study, which clearly gives the impression that students received additional instruction ("This activity was to supplement the daily reading instructional program and be monitored by the classroom teacher."). It should be noted that for a product that advertises ease of use, additional staff were added and the intervention was extended from 10 to 14 weeks. Beginning in the sixth week, an instructional aide was added to each classroom, partially due to the students not following the rules of the game. Because of this situation, any improvement may have been due merely to extra individualized attention from instructional aides. Ms. Meserve and the author did not explain why extra staff and time were used in this study.
• A test consultant for Riverside Publishing, the publisher of the test used in the study, said that the author's test analysis was incorrect. Ms. Meserve then stated that the test consultant was incorrect. It seems odd that Ms. Meserve would complain that the test company’s consultant did not understand the company’s test.

Although it is difficult to analyze the data given the information provided, it is clear that although the students received extra instructional aides and possibly 28 hours of extra instruction, they did not improve one grade level.

We were amazed to see this study on a recent Phonics Game television infomercial. The graphics show that the students who received The Phonics Game did better, but they did not mention that the students also received extra staff assistance when the product was not working as planned. Again, this study did not address the advertising claim that The Phonics Game improves grades.

Testimonials

Because the company cannot prove the effectiveness of The Phonics Game based on research, we reviewed some Phonics Game testimonials in our original report. Claims by Pam Barret, a teacher, and Chuck Jones, the principal, of Tovashal Elementary School are prominent in The Phonics Game web site and magazine and other advertising. Ms. Barret claimed that every student in her first grade class was above grade level in reading. The information director of Murrieta Valley Unified School District (Murrieta, CA) provided school achievement scores that do not match those claims.

When we contacted Chuck Jones about the discrepancy, he restated his belief that all of Ms. Barret's students were probably above grade level, although the actual achievement scores showed otherwise. Mr. Jones was then asked if each of Ms. Barret’s students improved one letter-grade and increased IQ scores by 10 points. Mr. Jones said that while good reading skills are important, other factors (such as student motivation) influence classroom grades. Also, he would not support the claim that using The Phonics Game results in a 10-point IQ increase.

The district's director of curriculum provided a different picture from that given by Ms. Barret and Mr. Jones. When he reviewed Ms. Barret's achievement data, he noted that Ms. Barret's claim that 100% of her children were above grade level was untrue. For example, he said that on the reading test’s Phonemic Awareness subscale (a skill that is supposed to be taught in The Phonics Game), 31% of her students scored below or well below average.

It is interesting that the company said that we were in error about the story and yet they removed the "Triumph at Tovashal" story a few days after our report was published. The "Triumph at Tovashal" story, however, is available on another site (without the more than ten spelling and grammar errors in the original story, www.cdipage.com/tovashal.htm).

Until approximately February 2, 1999, there was a letter from Pam Barret in the testimonial section of The Phonics Game web site. Before responding to their criticism, it should be noted that the letter on the web site does not match Ms. Barret’s actual letter that the company sent us. Because the company refused to answer questions about Ms. Barret, we were unable to discover the reason for this discrepancy.

According to A Better Way of Learning, we were in error about test results for Pam Barret’s class. Their director of education explains that, "Pam Barret's assertion that her class was at or above grade level was based on the Early Literacy Assessment, Total Reading, administered in June, 1998" and goes on to describe her 20 students. How can that be? The date of her letter is February 16, 1997. How can she be talking about June 1998 test results in February 1997? Also, her testimonial that was still on their web site on February 2, 1999 states that she had 32 students. Because of this discrepancy, we will rely on information provided by the two school district officials (the information director and curriculum director), which shows that all of her students were not at or above grade level.

Also, Ms. Barret states that she bought The Phonics Game after hearing advertisements about it. In truth, she may have helped develop The Phonics Game (see "The Phonics Game Kit" section below for further explanation).

We conducted a small study on the impact of The Phonics Game on students’ IQ scores. We administered an IQ test to one student and then he received 18 hours of The Phonics Game instruction. Upon retesting, his IQ score was the same, given normal random factors. The advertised 10-point IQ score increase did not occur.

In a December 3, 1998 letter from attorney Carmen Smith Jr., he states that "You also misstate or mislead your readers concerning I.Q. improvement (sic). Although there is a body of research that shows a positive correlation between reading ability and I.Q. scores, to our knowledge A Better Way of Learning, Inc. has never authorized any claim to be made that its product will, in fact, improve I.Q. scores by ten points." Previous E-mails clearly show that A Better Way of Learning representatives appeared to give the illusion that A Better Way of Learning products improve IQ. This claim of IQ improvement was also made in The Junior Phonics Game manual, interviews with Myrna Culbreath and with Mr. Cynaumon, their previous web site (9/7/98, but since removed), an advertisement by one of their distributors (www.cdipage.com/jphonics.htm), and a recent brochure received on February 2, 1999. While A Better Way of Learning staff state that they have never made such a claim, there are many examples that show they have consistently made claims that their reading program impacts IQ improvement.

Analysis of the Phonics Game Kit

A Better Way of Learning staff complained that our review of The Phonics Game kit was "incomplete and based on selective and outdated information," because we did not include the latest kit in our review. It is an interesting criticism for several reasons. First, the kit with new videos was released only a few weeks before we published our report. Basically, the game is the same as been sold for over three years with few changes. The first new videotape is an introduction by Alex Trebek. The second tape provides the letter sounds and the third tape describes how to play the six games. The most noticeable difference is the use of Alex Trebek in the new videotapes with a possible slight increased use of children of color. Barbara Meserve complained that we did not include the new Phonetic Readers and the CD-ROM game in our review. The most obvious reason why these products were not considered was that they were not even on the market when we wrote our report. Another reason was because they are not part of the kit. They were supplementary products that cost $34.95 for the readers and $49.95 for the CD-ROM. Starting approximately 2½ months after our report, these products became a mandatory part of The Phonics Game kit. Interestingly, the readers are not even mentioned as part of the kit in the company's infomercial (February 14, 1999).

Because of the company’s criticisms, we decided to expand our evaluation of The Phonics Game. However, due to space limitations, we have decided to provide only some of our critical evaluation. The main issue still should be "Does the product live up to its claims?"

The Phonics Game contains 3 video tapes, a play book, 7 audio tapes, 6 double-deck card games with zip-lock card holders, sound code chart, reading selections, stickers, and game plan calendar. The probable cost of these materials is probably less than $15 with the greatest expense being the plastic storage box. The first videotape is an introduction that lasts only 5 minutes 36 seconds. Three of the 6 audiotapes are less than 17 minutes in length and Side B of the fifth audiotape lasts only 49 seconds. The zip-lock cardholders are really mini-zip-lock bags (like mini-sandwich bags) that probably cost less than 1 cent. Because this is a reading kit, consumers probably expect that The Phonics Game would contain books. There are no books in the kit. Instead, there are only six 5"X8" notecards. While we were finishing our original report, the company added 10 booklets and a computer CD-ROM game as supplements. After our report, the booklets and CD-ROM became a mandatory part of The Phonics Game kit. Barbara Meserve complained "We wish that we could produce The Phonics Game for $15. The actual production costs are significantly higher, and, as with any direct marketing company, advertising costs are a major consideration." We are not sure what the level of advertising has to do with our estimate of the actual Phonics Game materials. One of our points was that this $300 reading kit (that is supposed to cover beginning to 12^th grade reading levels) includes little reading practice, even with the new addition of 10 small booklets. Also, it is unclear why the company has mandated the inclusion of the CD-ROM computer game. We called The Phonics Game and asked what a consumer would do if he did not have a computer to use the $50 CD-ROM disk. The order taker stated that it was a mandatory part of the kit and maybe the child could take the disk to school to use. Many school districts ban the use of nonschool software for fear of software viruses.

One of the most interesting rules of the game is that the manual states many games can be played by one person. The obvious problem is how do nonreaders know if they are reading correctly. To expand this issue, how would two nonreaders know if they are reading the words correctly or if they are practicing misreading the words?

Out of curiosity, we conducted a reading analysis of a story connected to the final game and the final reading test, because the program is supposed to teach 12^th grade reading skills. The reading level for the story is third grade and the reading level for the final test is fifth grade. The following is the final paragraph of the highest-level reading notecard: "A feeling of confidence came over Alex. His college days were ending, and he looked forward to starting a new life as a professional." Ms. Meserve’s response was "The reading tests at the end of the Playbook were also misunderstood. You will note that Beginning Test I is for younger or beginning readers. The Ending Test is related to the Beginning Test so the student can see if they have improved their decoding skills. Students also can monitor their progress as they move through the program using the readers." We have no idea what her point is. If The Phonics Game is supposed to finish at a 12^th grade reading level, why is the ending test at a fifth grade level? After reviewing The Phonics Game content, Culbreath’s claim that successful business executives, physicians, and other professionals needed this reading program to learn to read seems dubious.

In our original report we stated that while watching the third videotape, we were surprised to see Ms. Pam Barret appearing as an actress demonstrating how to use Game 5. Because of her video appearance, Ms. Barret’s subsequent testimonials that she purchased the game after hearing about it on the radio should be questioned. Ms. Meserve’s response was that Ms. Barret "did buy and use the game successfully before contacting us with her story. The video she appeared in also featured many other ‘happy’ users of The Phonics Game. In response, we requested the names of The Phonics Game development team. They refused.

Also, Culbreath states many times in her interviews that this program will teach people to spell, but this program contains only nine sets of spelling words. The spelling audiotape merely gives a quick review of some sounds and then the spelling lists. The highest list includes these words: sitting, swimming, neatest, tailspin, softly, candid, silent, exercise, and remember. Only two 3-syllable words, the last two words "exercise" and "remember," are in the spelling program. These words are probably below a fourth-grade level. Culbreath claims that this program was helpful for college professors who could not spell, but it is doubtful that they would be unable to spell the words on the highest list.

The Comprehension Game is often offered as a free gift "if you call in the next hour" or "if you order from the Internet." According to an order taker, it is free to everyone. It is difficult to understand how this game could teach comprehension skills when there are only 31 content cards for a program that is supposed to span all grade levels. The content of the 3 "Readings about Reading" cards [e.g., a reference to Marilyn Adams’ Beginning to Read college textbook] seems odd content for young readers. Also, there are 7 "Rule" cards (4 cards with general statements about comprehension and 3 cards explaining hyperbole, simile, and metaphor) and 9 game-related cards (2 "Joker" cards, 2 "Give" cards, and 5 "Take" cards). Overall, there are few comprehension strategies and almost no practice in this game. A major problem is that the correct answers for many questions are unclear.

When we asked several adults to answer Card 47, each said that they had to guess at the answer. See if you can figure out the answer to these comprehension questions. Note: We have not made typing/formatting errors in this section. This is exactly how Card 47 appears.

Front side of Card 47:

"We’re not going to kill, today."

                                                 Captain Kirk, Star Trek

                               "Delight in diversity."

                                                   Mr. Spock, Star Trek

Back side of Card 47:

True or false? Captain Kirk meant that no matter how much anyone may feel anger or be pressured to fight or kill, the killing will stop when we say, "We’re not going to kill today."

True or false? Mr. Spock probably means that his Vulcan ancestors believe in the value of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" – "IDIC."

This means that differences between people are not only to be tolerated, but are good and valuable.

We were totally confused by this reading passage, the questions, and the answer.

Our criticisms so far have targeted the physical products. In addition, the content is often inaccurate. We will give a few examples. First, many sounds are mispronounced. For example, they say not to add "uh" so that "d" becomes "duh." This occurs after they add "uh" and mispronounce "b" as "buh" and "c" as "cuh." This means that they mispronounce the sounding out of "b..a..d" to become "buh…a….duh."

Second, one full game ("Silent Partners") is based on the rule that when two vowels are together, the first vowel is emphasized. This is similar to the common phrase "the first vowel does the talking and the second vowel does the walking." Remember, The Phonics Game authors cited Marilyn Adams’ Beginning to Read book in the Comprehension Game. It is too bad that they did not seem to read this classic book before they created The Phonics Game. Starting on page 257, Adams mentioned the research by Clymer (1963), which was conducted 31 years before The Phonics Game was copyrighted. Clymer found that 55% of the time the "talking-walking" rule is not true. For example, in the "ui" combination, the first vowel is long and the second vowel is silent (as in "suit") only 6% of the time. Words such as "build" occur 94% of the time. Adams noted that these findings have been replicated several times by Bailey, Burmeister, Emans, and Sorenson (cited in Searfoss & Readence). The Phonics Game developers ignored these and other research findings.

Third, the game doesn’t teach blending. They teach the separate sounds ("m….a….n") without a procedure for blending the sounds together to make the word ("man"). Again, they did not appear to read Marilyn Adams’ book Beginning to Read. Blending is an important reading skill that is a predictor of later reading skills.

Probably the biggest reason to question the effectiveness claims of this program is within The Phonics Game manual. The manual says that students should evaluate their graduation from The Phonics Game based on the results of taking Ending Tests (pp. 50-51). The following is one of only two reading passages:

The Clouds

"Clouds that wander through the sky,
Sometimes low and sometimes high:
In the darkness of the night,
In the sunshine warm and bright,
Ah! I wonder much if you
Have any useful work to do.

Yes, we're busy night and day,
As over the earth we make our way,
We are bearers of the rain
To the grass, and flowers, and grain;
We guard you from the sun's bright rays,
In the sultry summer days."

(From the McGuffey Readers, Grade Two)

Even though this is supposed to be an exit test, the question is "Why was a second grade reading-level passage with only one- or two-syllable words selected?" The following are the two questions about the passage; the second question is mispunctuated.

"What was this poem about?"
"What did it describe." (The ending punctuation should be a question mark, not a period.) Of course, the answer is obvious by the title of the poem.

The second reading passage describes toads and how they differ from frogs. The grade level for this passage is only 5.9. Again, this selection must be questioned because it is so easy; it is 0.5 grade level easier than the beginning test passage. Also, a comprehension question is unanswerable. The question is, "Can you tell a frog from a toad?" The passage describes toads, not frogs. The only answer that can be given correctly is "Yes."

Overall, there is little content in this $200+ reading kit (now $300 after shipping) and much of the information is incorrect. None of the content is beyond the early elementary grades and because there are only a few, short booklets, it is unclear how students would practice the specific skills taught by the game. Now that the company has added the booklets and CD-ROM to the kit, the question is "What if the parents do not have a computer?" The parent has to pay an extra $50 for a product that they can’t use.

The Elusive Eleven Unanswered Issues

Maybe A Better Way of Learning officials (such as, Blair Armstrong or Coleman Kane) will answer these issues for you. One of our frustrations was that we assumed that A Better Way of Learning officials would provide us with answers to our questions sent one month ago (January 15, 1999), but they have refused. It appears that their rationale is that we are a competitor, although we have no competitive products. For that reason, they should be willing to answer the following questions from objective media journalists. The first four questions are new and the other seven are our previous unanswered questions.

1. Alex Trebek states that The Phonics Game helped his child. Will he provide his child’s before-and-after report cards that show a one grade-level improvement?
2. Why did A Better Way of Learning officials allow Mr. Cynaumon to pretend he was an outside expert (e.g., school psychologist) in print, web, audio, and video ads and interviews for the company and for shows such as Montel Williams and Charles Grodin when he was really a vice president of the company?
3. Although Cameron Smith, Jr., the A Better Way of Learning attorney, wrote on December 3, 1998 that Mr. Cynaumon had not been with the company for months, why was he still promoting "The Phonics Game much later?"
4. Where is the proof behind the following statement, "According to A Better Way of Learning Director of Education, Barbara Meserve, by the time a child has completed ‘The Phonics Game’, and read all 10 Phonetic Readers in the series, ‘They will have the phonics skills to confidently read books at their grade level, or higher.’?"
5. From our conversation, it appears that there was no research on any A Better Way of Learning products until the Martois study. Is this correct? Have there been any subsequent research studies
6. Please include all research evidence showing that The Phonics Game cures the "sleepy-tired syndrome."
7. You said that we misinterpreted this statement, "Experts agree and common sense dictates that children learn best when engaged in game-based activities." How should this statement be interpreted? What is your research proof supporting that statement?
8. Please provide documentation (including grade reports) showing that Christine jumped from F’s to A’s, as described in the testimonial section of our report.
9. You state that Mrs. Dismuke is a teacher. What testing courses has she taken? Which test did she use on her child? Please provide before-and-after test results documentation.
10. Another testimonial described Gerald going from zero to fifth grade reading in ten hours. Please provide documentation, including the test results, for this claim.
11. For each copyrighted version, who were the members of the reading and math game development teams, especially the 1996 Phonics Game product?

Media journalists can call Gary Adams toll-free for more information 1-877-EDPROOF.

Interpreting Federal Trade Commission Regulations

Probably the biggest disagreement we have with A Better Way of Learning is interpreting FTC regulations. They state that we are incorrect and their lawyers have approved their advertising. For that reason, we will be submitting this report to the Federal Trade Commission and we will assume that A Better Way of Learning officials will send a report describing their position. Jointly, we can request a FTC ruling to clarify this matter. If we are incorrect, we are very willing to retract substantive errors in our story. We are willing to publicize this information, along with any findings in our favor, in full-page ads in several major educational magazines and post the information in all education Internet discussion groups.

Conclusions

The ability to read is a key to school success and those who can't read are at a severe disadvantage. The relationship between false hopes created by these $200-300 phonics programs and a child’s self-esteem is demonstrated in the following true story. A radio show host asked listeners to pay for Christmas presents for children from poor families who could not afford presents. In a letter to Santa, a child wrote that he wanted an expensive phonics program because he was a poor reader and he believed that after using this program a short period of time he could catch or surpass his classmates. Imagine how he would feel if he received the program and did not improve his reading skills as he expected. He would probably think it was his fault, rather than realize that the claims of effectiveness were unsupported.

The company states that they claim nothing. They say that the statements about one grade level or IQ improvement are not even claims. As you can tell from the documentation, they even state they never made the IQ improvement claim. Our documentation clearly shows that their past and current advertising and past and current representatives and employees have made those claims. Obviously, we disagree with the company. We believe that the average consumer labels the "one grade improvement" advertising a claim, but readers of our report can make their own decisions.

Educational publishers have learned that parents, especially parents who homeschool their children, are very willing to buy reading programs if the word "phonics" is in the title. Also, on a daily basis there are product recalls and lawsuits against companies that sell defective products. Marketers of educational products have not had to worry about these legal consequences. People do not sue them. For that reason, marketers know that companies can make exaggerated claims without fearing legal response.

From our discussions with many users of this and other educational programs, we notice that teachers and parents often attribute success to a particular program when in fact it may just be a matter of extra individualized tutoring time. Also, research studies consistently show that people may overproject success when they have invested time and money on a new product. In the case of The Phonics Game, they may be learning misrules about reading.

We believe that the best way to finish this report is to quote a representative of A Better Way of Learning. In a Los Angeles Times story on November 29, 1998, the reporter wrote, "A spokeswoman said there are no studies to verify the promise of a one-grade increase but maintained that students make progress."

Appendix

Under each category, we provide problems with the web site locations of those problems when appropriate. Then we give the rationale for the problem. We expect that the company will fix or delete many of these web pages. Currently, there are several interviews (infomercials). Because these interviews contain many questionable statements, we expect that some or all of these interviews will be removed. They have been removed. 

The company complained that our comments were incorrect. Yet, as you will notice, we were accurate when we predicted that the company would remove almost every section that we mentioned. We will highlight the items removed after our report was issued by noting "REMOVED"

False Representations by People

• Mr. Cynaumon described himself as if he is an independent expert. Depending on the advertisement or interview, Mr. Cynaumon describes himself as a sociologist, child development specialist, school psychologist, psychologist, therapist, educational psychologist, and child psychologist.
  *Mr. Cynaumon was a vice president of A Better Way of Learning and will not describe his educational background. Various California agencies do not support his use of many professional titles. REMOVED - We believe that our documentation supports our claim. Mr. Cynaumon was featured on their web site, their television infomercial, and in their print information after the company stated that he was not affiliated with the company.
• On several web pages, they say they have educational experts or consultants available to provide free professional advice to help parents (e.g., www.PHONICSGAME.com).
  *In truth, the "experts" and "consultants" are actually order takers for The Phonics Game. REMOVED - Order takers were labeled "educational consultants (3/11/98), then "educational experts" (9/6/98), then "educational representatives" after our original report (12/3/98), then representatives (12/8/98), and finally "customer care representatives" in 2/99. Also, we received a Phonics Game brochure on February 2, 1999 and the order takers were labeled "educational consultants." When we called the company, the order taker stated that he was simply an order taker and was not a consultant.

Misrepresentation of Information

The following are some of the examples of the misrepresentation:

• In the "Teachers Magazines have a lot to say about The Phonics Game" section (www.PHONICSGAME.com/frmain.htm), they say, "Here's what two leading National Teacher Magazines (sic) had to say about The Phonics Game!" The quote from Teaching PreK-8 magazine is "The Phonics Game is fun, easy to follow, and most of all, successful."
  *In truth, a search of this magazine found no such quote. There is an ad for The Phonics Game, but even the ad does not have that quote. Recently, the quote has changed, but it still does not exist in the magazine. REMOVED – The Teaching PreK-8 cover was used without permission and removed after we contacted the publisher. See the comment in the next section.
• Also in the "Teachers Magazines have a lot to say about The Phonics Game" section (www.PHONICSGAME.com/frmain.htm), they provide the following quote that they say is from Learning magazine, "The Phonics Game Provides (sic) everything you need to implement a successful phonics strategy in your classroom."
  *The problem is that there is no such quote in the review. The actual content basically describes the contents of the kit, which is shown later on the web page. Recently, the quote has changed, but it still does not exist in the magazine. REMOVED – A Better Way of Learning complained that we made an error. They said that the quotes for these magazines were one way and then accidentally switched. Also, they said that they would send corrected information. Two months later what they sent us proved our point. Neither magazine had either quote.
• In the "Phonics in the News" section of their web site (www.PHONICSGAME.com/news.htm), there were TIME and Newsweek magazine covers of issues about reading instruction and two Los Angeles Times articles. The magazine stories appear to be connected to The Phonics Game and the newspaper stories appear to be about phonics. REMOVED - Actually, previously that section also had a link described as "The Press Talks About Our Products" when the stories were not about The Phonics Game, but were about phonics and education in general.
  *The magazine covers were illegally reproduced and the stories have nothing to do with The Phonics Game. The Newsweek cover has been removed. However, it appears that the illegally reproduced Newsweek story is still being used by one of The Phonics Game distributors. See www.cdipage.com/phonics.htm ; however, the original article did not have excessive typos. Newsweek and TIME covers were removed after we contacted their reporters. The newspaper articles are not about phonics. The first Los Angeles Times article had several errors; the title "Why Schools Are Failing" does not match the real title "Why Our Schools Are Failing" and contains two grammar errors. It is interesting that they included the article titled "Reading Blues" by Richard Lee Colvin, also wrote an article critical of expensive home reading programs. REMOVED - Both stories were removed and replaced by two Los Angeles Times stories about phonics instruction (with copyright releases). It is ironic that the company selected an article by Duke Helfand. They did not include his Los Angeles Times article "Phonics Spells Business for Entrepreneurs" November 29, 1998 in which Helfand specifically mentioned The Phonics Game in the context of expensive, unproven reading programs.
• The Phonics Game is supposed to teach phonics, but their featured example is incorrect (www.PHONICSGAME.com/howyou.htm). They show a child sounding out the word "phonics" as "p....h...."
  *Of course, they should show "ph" making an "f" sound. REMOVED - The company stated that the example was for spelling, not reading. However, the spelling program does not teach this differentiation.
• Also in that section (www.PHONICSGAME.com/howyou.htm), they state that "less than 4% of school children read at the proper grade level."
  *REMOVED - This information is incorrect.
• In several places, they make similar assertions (e.g., www.PHONICSGAME.com/question.htm) such as, "Experts agree and common sense dictates that children learn best when engaged in game-based activities."
  *There is no proof that a game format improves the speed of knowledge acquisition. This assertion is currently located at www.phonicsgame.com/OnlineOrdering/83_faqs.htm . We could find no research proof for this statement. We requested research evidence from the company, but they refused to respond to our requests for proof.

Rather than review every ad for The Phonics Game, the following is a review of just one of their brochures. We do not know if the company has removed this advertisement.

• "Give your children The Phonics Game Advantage and let them play their way to better grades in all subjects."
  *ALL subjects - How can a reading program improve a student's grades in physics or algebra?
• "Who needs phonics? Concerned parents like you, who have children who are experiencing anxiety over school."
  *There are many reasons for school anxiety (for example, a bully). How does this program cure all types of school anxiety?
• "Who needs phonics? Older children & teenagers, who have study problems."
  *There are many reasons for study problems (for example, a lack of organization). How does this program cure all types of study skill problems?
• "Who needs phonics? Older children & teenagers, who have trouble retaining test information."
  *Although better reading is helpful, there are many reasons for the lack of information retention. For example, perhaps the student did not study long enough or simply did not understand the underlying concepts of what was being taught.
• "Who needs phonics? Adults, who become sleepy when they read."
  *The claim that this game will cure "the sleepy-tired syndrome" is made often in their advertising. There are many reasons why adults become sleepy (for example, the lack of sleep from the previous night) and they provide no proof that this syndrome even exists.
• "It's (The Phonics Game) the most impressive reading improvement program to come along in 50 years!"
  *If true, why isn't this program mentioned in any book on reading instruction? Obviously, this is a wild exaggeration.

Questionable Testimonials

There are (were) many questionable testimonials. We have limited our review to three home-use examples, but many other questionable testimonials are on their web site. REMOVED - All parent testimonials, except one, were removed. The one that was retained was from an adult who said the Phonics Game improved his spelling. After our report, they corrected his spelling error in the story.

• This is the story of Christine’s success (www.PHONICSGAME.com/testimon.htm): "For Christine, ‘F’s’ became ‘A’s’ and fears became strengths. Now an outgoing, articulate high school student, she competes on the debate team, plays soccer and is a member of the cheerleading squad. ‘She would never have been able to do that before The Phonics Game. She actually looks forward to her homework assignments now!’ her mom added proudly."
  *How could The Phonics Game lead to success on the cheerleading squad and the soccer field? REMOVED - We requested documentation from the company about this claim. We were refused.
• Marshal (or Marshall – it is spelled both ways) Dismuke said that his child read above grade level in only 3 hours (www.PHONICSGAME.com/monthly.htm).
  *Besides the fact that the claim seems dubious, how does a parent know what "above grade level" would be? REMOVED - We requested documentation from the company about this claim. We were refused.
• Gerald’s reading level supposedly went from zero to 5th grade in only 10 hours.
  *The idea that someone could improve 5 grade levels or that someone would be retested after only 10 hours of instruction is doubtful. REMOVED - We requested documentation from the company about this claim. We were refused.
• There is a short questionnaire at the end of the testimonial section, which includes the following: "You struggle with spelling? (Good thing your secretary or wife is a good speller!)."
  * Female readers may be offended by this sexist comment (and poor grammar). REMOVED"

Although the company threatened to sue, after we published our report we never heard from them again.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bailey, M. H. (1967). The utility of phonic generalizations in grades one through six. Reading Teacher, 20, 413-418.

Burmeister, L. E. (1968). Usefulness of phonic generalizations. Reading Teacher, 21, 349-356.

Campbell, D & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage, ed. Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Chall, J. S., Roswell, F. G., & Blumenthal, S. H. (1963). Auditory blending ability: A factor in success in beginning reading. Reading Teacher, 16, 113-118.

Clymer, T. (1963). The utility of phonemic generalizations in the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 16, 252-258.

Emans, R. (1967). The usefulness of phonic generalizations above the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 20, 419-425.

Lundberg, I., Olofoson, A., & Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 159-173.

Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283-319.

Searfoss, L. W., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Helping children learn to read. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sorenson, N. A. (1983). A study of the reliability phonic generalizations in five primary-level basal reading programs. Doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University.

top
© edresearch.com, 2004 - All Rights Reserved

.