This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Today we're
talking about the difference between literacy
scholars and journalists, an important thing
to know. Journalists write stories. People tell
them things, they write it down, they put it
together to create a story. They are writing
for impact versus accuracy. Often. For example,
Sarah Schwartz writes a lot of stuff. She is
a journalist. Accuracy doesn't really matter
for her. A new low, she says. Well, she's just
writing that. She's choosing what to look for.
There's no peer review in what she writes. She's
just writing stuff. Is this really a new low?
Well, natural fluctuations over time. What she's
writing about is conveniently inaccurate. These
are eighth grade scores. It's not a new low.
Yes, we had the COVID dip and we're still coping
with that. And besides, her article was written
at the end of 2025, Sarah Schwartz. We've been
making a big deal about all this new legislation
and science of reading. Look at the years when
all this legislation has passed. 2019, 21, 22,
23, 24. So you're saying a new low? Correlation?
Hmm. Sounds like all this new science of reading
legislation is causing this new low. If The science
of reading was to create miracles. We should
be expecting to see miracle upon miracle by now.
Journalists are welcome into our academic discussion,
but they should not get a free pass. Publish
in an academic journal, speak at a conference
that allows for discussion, get alternative points
of view, cite specific research. Scholars are
subjected to blind peer review. And again, Sarah
Schwartz is one. She and Emily Hanford, they're
just saying stuff. There's no checks and balances.
She's talking about queuing and she doesn't even
know what queuing is. Journalists are not literacy
scholars. Research has shown. All right, scholars
can't get away with just saying, Research has
shown. What research? Show me, show them for
who, for what? You can't just say stuff. And
in bizarro world, American public media is cited
as a source of academic information and too often
we are living in that bizarro world. Scholars
must rely on research, not data. Not surveys,
anecdotal evidence, not interviews, but research.
And research is not research unless and until
it has been subjected to blind peer review and
published in an academic journal. Here's the
process. Someone conducts a research. They write
it up. They send it to a journal. The editor
sends it to people who are experts in their field,
usually two to five. Blind peer review because
these reviewers do not know who wrote the manuscript
and the manuscript writer does not know who the
reviewers are. The reviewers assess and evaluate.
They give their comments and criticisms and they
make a recommendation either to accept, accept
with revisions, or reject. The editor takes all
that and the editor makes the final decision
and often there's back and forth between the
writer and the editor before it's published.
That's a lot of filters there. Let's see what
happens with the journalists. Oh, people tell
you things, you write it down, you send it to
your editor, and they publish things. Not a lot
of filters there, no blind peer review by experts
in the field. And if you write stuff on the internet,
you just think of stuff and you write it. Karen
Viatas and Kelsey Piper wrote this hilarious
thing on a substack called The Argument. And
if you want a good laugh, go ahead and go there.
Lots of laughs there. A scholar is different
from a journalist. Anecdotal evidence, which
journalists rely on, is different from evidence.
And being popular. is different from being right.
Now, see if you can tell me which one of these
refer to a journalist and which one to a scholar.
The work is submitted to Blind Peer Review. They
write stuff. Hmm, scholar journalists have extensive
background knowledge about what they write. They
write what people tell them. Important. Cites
specific research when making a research -based
claim. Just says research has shown, scientists
are telling, it has been proven that. Understands
the basic elements of science in determining
causality. Randomly assigns causality. Oh, scores
are going down, it's that. Correlation does not
infer or imply causation. If two things occur
together, one must have caused the other to occur.
Generalized to larger population only if the
sample is similar and ample. Generalized to large
populations based on a sample size of one or
two. It happened to this kid, therefore it happens
to all kids. This is what my daughter did in
New York, therefore all of New York. Reading
curriculum is bad. Read Jessica Winter's article.
Uses anecdotal evidence and experiences to illustrate
research versus using it as research. Considers
journalists to be journalists. Considers journalists
to be valid sources. Writes research, scholarly
articles and books. Writes stories and columns.
Writes for an audience with some knowledge and
expertise. Writes for an audience with little
knowledge or expertise. Strives for objectivity,
reliability and validity reports limitations.
Strives for accuracy creates the illusion of
objectivity does not report limitations or conflicts.
considers themselves to be experts because they
are, considers themselves experts on a subject
because they write about it, understands the
basics of science and research, understands the
basics of journalism. Who might be able to provide
the best information about reading instruction?
Expertise is important in conducting research
and scholarly work in any field. You know what
questions to ask. You understand the constics.
You know what data to collect. You understand
how to collect the data. You understand how to
make inferences based on the data. You understand
the limitations of data. You understand the difference
between data and research. Why is scholarship
knowledge and expertise being shunned in favor
of common sense, business sense, and political
sense? I welcome journalists into our academic
conversations, but you do not get a free pass
on ignorance. You need some background knowledge
to have the conversation. It's really hard and
I've tried to have conversations with journalists
who have shallow and disjointed knowledge base
and I'm often having to correct the questions
they ask. This has been the Reading Instruction
Show. I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.