WEBVTT 00:00:01.520 --> 00:00:04.259 This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your 00:00:04.259 --> 00:00:07.179 host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Today we're 00:00:07.179 --> 00:00:10.839 talking about the difference between literacy 00:00:10.839 --> 00:00:14.080 scholars and journalists, an important thing 00:00:14.080 --> 00:00:20.440 to know. Journalists write stories. People tell 00:00:20.440 --> 00:00:23.940 them things, they write it down, they put it 00:00:23.940 --> 00:00:27.399 together to create a story. They are writing 00:00:27.399 --> 00:00:34.210 for impact versus accuracy. Often. For example, 00:00:34.990 --> 00:00:39.310 Sarah Schwartz writes a lot of stuff. She is 00:00:39.310 --> 00:00:42.369 a journalist. Accuracy doesn't really matter 00:00:42.369 --> 00:00:45.409 for her. A new low, she says. Well, she's just 00:00:45.409 --> 00:00:48.210 writing that. She's choosing what to look for. 00:00:48.409 --> 00:00:52.090 There's no peer review in what she writes. She's 00:00:52.090 --> 00:00:55.630 just writing stuff. Is this really a new low? 00:00:55.920 --> 00:01:00.840 Well, natural fluctuations over time. What she's 00:01:00.840 --> 00:01:04.159 writing about is conveniently inaccurate. These 00:01:04.159 --> 00:01:06.879 are eighth grade scores. It's not a new low. 00:01:07.219 --> 00:01:09.799 Yes, we had the COVID dip and we're still coping 00:01:09.799 --> 00:01:14.340 with that. And besides, her article was written 00:01:14.340 --> 00:01:18.400 at the end of 2025, Sarah Schwartz. We've been 00:01:18.400 --> 00:01:21.920 making a big deal about all this new legislation 00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:25.329 and science of reading. Look at the years when 00:01:25.329 --> 00:01:31.409 all this legislation has passed. 2019, 21, 22, 00:01:31.689 --> 00:01:36.909 23, 24. So you're saying a new low? Correlation? 00:01:37.629 --> 00:01:41.430 Hmm. Sounds like all this new science of reading 00:01:41.430 --> 00:01:46.879 legislation is causing this new low. If The science 00:01:46.879 --> 00:01:49.319 of reading was to create miracles. We should 00:01:49.319 --> 00:01:54.060 be expecting to see miracle upon miracle by now. 00:01:54.799 --> 00:01:58.540 Journalists are welcome into our academic discussion, 00:01:58.879 --> 00:02:02.879 but they should not get a free pass. Publish 00:02:02.879 --> 00:02:06.180 in an academic journal, speak at a conference 00:02:06.180 --> 00:02:10.280 that allows for discussion, get alternative points 00:02:10.280 --> 00:02:14.819 of view, cite specific research. Scholars are 00:02:14.819 --> 00:02:19.319 subjected to blind peer review. And again, Sarah 00:02:19.319 --> 00:02:23.400 Schwartz is one. She and Emily Hanford, they're 00:02:23.400 --> 00:02:26.080 just saying stuff. There's no checks and balances. 00:02:26.500 --> 00:02:30.039 She's talking about queuing and she doesn't even 00:02:30.039 --> 00:02:35.520 know what queuing is. Journalists are not literacy 00:02:35.520 --> 00:02:40.439 scholars. Research has shown. All right, scholars 00:02:40.439 --> 00:02:42.909 can't get away with just saying, Research has 00:02:42.909 --> 00:02:46.810 shown. What research? Show me, show them for 00:02:46.810 --> 00:02:51.689 who, for what? You can't just say stuff. And 00:02:51.689 --> 00:02:56.590 in bizarro world, American public media is cited 00:02:56.590 --> 00:03:00.310 as a source of academic information and too often 00:03:00.310 --> 00:03:05.909 we are living in that bizarro world. Scholars 00:03:05.909 --> 00:03:11.060 must rely on research, not data. Not surveys, 00:03:11.580 --> 00:03:15.060 anecdotal evidence, not interviews, but research. 00:03:15.419 --> 00:03:18.719 And research is not research unless and until 00:03:18.719 --> 00:03:23.500 it has been subjected to blind peer review and 00:03:23.500 --> 00:03:28.599 published in an academic journal. Here's the 00:03:28.599 --> 00:03:32.060 process. Someone conducts a research. They write 00:03:32.060 --> 00:03:35.580 it up. They send it to a journal. The editor 00:03:35.580 --> 00:03:39.000 sends it to people who are experts in their field, 00:03:39.340 --> 00:03:43.199 usually two to five. Blind peer review because 00:03:43.199 --> 00:03:47.680 these reviewers do not know who wrote the manuscript 00:03:47.680 --> 00:03:51.639 and the manuscript writer does not know who the 00:03:51.639 --> 00:03:55.889 reviewers are. The reviewers assess and evaluate. 00:03:56.110 --> 00:03:59.870 They give their comments and criticisms and they 00:03:59.870 --> 00:04:03.909 make a recommendation either to accept, accept 00:04:03.909 --> 00:04:08.370 with revisions, or reject. The editor takes all 00:04:08.370 --> 00:04:11.270 that and the editor makes the final decision 00:04:11.270 --> 00:04:14.590 and often there's back and forth between the 00:04:14.590 --> 00:04:17.389 writer and the editor before it's published. 00:04:17.850 --> 00:04:20.529 That's a lot of filters there. Let's see what 00:04:20.529 --> 00:04:23.129 happens with the journalists. Oh, people tell 00:04:23.129 --> 00:04:26.170 you things, you write it down, you send it to 00:04:26.170 --> 00:04:30.850 your editor, and they publish things. Not a lot 00:04:30.850 --> 00:04:33.990 of filters there, no blind peer review by experts 00:04:33.990 --> 00:04:37.889 in the field. And if you write stuff on the internet, 00:04:38.490 --> 00:04:41.920 you just think of stuff and you write it. Karen 00:04:41.920 --> 00:04:45.620 Viatas and Kelsey Piper wrote this hilarious 00:04:45.620 --> 00:04:49.000 thing on a substack called The Argument. And 00:04:49.000 --> 00:04:51.540 if you want a good laugh, go ahead and go there. 00:04:52.220 --> 00:04:54.800 Lots of laughs there. A scholar is different 00:04:54.800 --> 00:04:58.600 from a journalist. Anecdotal evidence, which 00:04:58.600 --> 00:05:01.079 journalists rely on, is different from evidence. 00:05:01.439 --> 00:05:04.680 And being popular. is different from being right. 00:05:05.279 --> 00:05:08.180 Now, see if you can tell me which one of these 00:05:08.180 --> 00:05:12.980 refer to a journalist and which one to a scholar. 00:05:13.720 --> 00:05:17.399 The work is submitted to Blind Peer Review. They 00:05:17.399 --> 00:05:22.319 write stuff. Hmm, scholar journalists have extensive 00:05:22.319 --> 00:05:26.759 background knowledge about what they write. They 00:05:26.759 --> 00:05:30.519 write what people tell them. Important. Cites 00:05:30.519 --> 00:05:33.480 specific research when making a research -based 00:05:33.480 --> 00:05:38.399 claim. Just says research has shown, scientists 00:05:38.399 --> 00:05:43.800 are telling, it has been proven that. Understands 00:05:43.800 --> 00:05:47.000 the basic elements of science in determining 00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:53.180 causality. Randomly assigns causality. Oh, scores 00:05:53.180 --> 00:05:57.610 are going down, it's that. Correlation does not 00:05:57.610 --> 00:06:02.550 infer or imply causation. If two things occur 00:06:02.550 --> 00:06:05.730 together, one must have caused the other to occur. 00:06:08.290 --> 00:06:11.529 Generalized to larger population only if the 00:06:11.529 --> 00:06:17.009 sample is similar and ample. Generalized to large 00:06:17.009 --> 00:06:19.910 populations based on a sample size of one or 00:06:19.910 --> 00:06:23.209 two. It happened to this kid, therefore it happens 00:06:23.209 --> 00:06:26.449 to all kids. This is what my daughter did in 00:06:26.449 --> 00:06:29.089 New York, therefore all of New York. Reading 00:06:29.089 --> 00:06:33.089 curriculum is bad. Read Jessica Winter's article. 00:06:34.410 --> 00:06:39.430 Uses anecdotal evidence and experiences to illustrate 00:06:39.430 --> 00:06:47.009 research versus using it as research. Considers 00:06:47.009 --> 00:06:51.290 journalists to be journalists. Considers journalists 00:06:51.290 --> 00:06:55.990 to be valid sources. Writes research, scholarly 00:06:55.990 --> 00:06:59.889 articles and books. Writes stories and columns. 00:07:01.430 --> 00:07:03.649 Writes for an audience with some knowledge and 00:07:03.649 --> 00:07:06.769 expertise. Writes for an audience with little 00:07:06.769 --> 00:07:11.709 knowledge or expertise. Strives for objectivity, 00:07:11.970 --> 00:07:15.269 reliability and validity reports limitations. 00:07:16.430 --> 00:07:20.129 Strives for accuracy creates the illusion of 00:07:20.129 --> 00:07:23.689 objectivity does not report limitations or conflicts. 00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:27.439 considers themselves to be experts because they 00:07:27.439 --> 00:07:31.180 are, considers themselves experts on a subject 00:07:31.180 --> 00:07:35.540 because they write about it, understands the 00:07:35.540 --> 00:07:39.220 basics of science and research, understands the 00:07:39.220 --> 00:07:45.060 basics of journalism. Who might be able to provide 00:07:45.060 --> 00:07:48.839 the best information about reading instruction? 00:07:50.639 --> 00:07:54.639 Expertise is important in conducting research 00:07:54.639 --> 00:07:59.180 and scholarly work in any field. You know what 00:07:59.180 --> 00:08:01.819 questions to ask. You understand the constics. 00:08:02.220 --> 00:08:05.660 You know what data to collect. You understand 00:08:05.660 --> 00:08:09.000 how to collect the data. You understand how to 00:08:09.000 --> 00:08:12.740 make inferences based on the data. You understand 00:08:12.740 --> 00:08:15.839 the limitations of data. You understand the difference 00:08:15.839 --> 00:08:21.199 between data and research. Why is scholarship 00:08:21.199 --> 00:08:25.240 knowledge and expertise being shunned in favor 00:08:25.240 --> 00:08:28.199 of common sense, business sense, and political 00:08:28.199 --> 00:08:33.379 sense? I welcome journalists into our academic 00:08:33.379 --> 00:08:37.039 conversations, but you do not get a free pass 00:08:37.039 --> 00:08:40.620 on ignorance. You need some background knowledge 00:08:40.620 --> 00:08:44.149 to have the conversation. It's really hard and 00:08:44.149 --> 00:08:46.549 I've tried to have conversations with journalists 00:08:46.549 --> 00:08:50.049 who have shallow and disjointed knowledge base 00:08:50.049 --> 00:08:53.929 and I'm often having to correct the questions 00:08:53.929 --> 00:08:58.190 they ask. This has been the Reading Instruction 00:08:58.190 --> 00:09:01.269 Show. I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.