Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / Dr. Johnson is Not Very Smart

Transcript

Dr. Johnson is Not Very Smart · The Reading Instruction Show

• 0:01
  This is The Reading Instruction, so I'm your
• 0:04
  host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's podcast
• 0:08
  is, Dr. Johnson is not very smart. Now, here's
• 0:15
  something upon which we can all agree. I'm not
• 0:20
  very smart. I just read a lot. And I say this
• 0:25
  because people online remind me all the time
• 0:29
  of how not smart I am. Some people also say that
• 0:34
  I'm ignorant. Now, ignorance means one lacks
• 0:39
  knowledge. And I am not ignorant. I'm just not
• 0:44
  very smart. Smart, or intelligence, is the ability
• 0:50
  to use one's knowledge to solve real -world problems.
• 0:56
  If I was smart, I'd be able to solve this problem.
• 1:00
  How can I make millions of dollars like Louisa
• 1:03
  Moats and Emily Hanford? And I'd be able to solve
• 1:08
  this problem. How can I get state legislators
• 1:12
  to understand the negative impact? of science
• 1:17
  of reading legislation. Now, I also want to remind
• 1:22
  you that I'm not very smart because my writing
• 1:26
  about the academy in just a minute might seem
• 1:29
  a little snobbish or elitist. And by the way,
• 1:35
  to be elite is to be the very best at something
• 1:39
  like elite Olympic athletes. And wouldn't we
• 1:45
  want the very best scholars, researchers, and
• 1:48
  teachers to make decisions about reading instruction?
• 1:54
  Wouldn't we want a bit of elitism here? Elitism
• 2:00
  is a term often used by the far right to mean
• 2:03
  exclusion. However, the very best, the elite
• 2:08
  scholars that I've encountered, want the very
• 2:12
  opposite. of exclusion. They want inclusion.
• 2:18
  They want to include all scholars, teachers,
• 2:23
  and researchers into the conversation. They want
• 2:27
  to include all research methodologies, paradigms,
• 2:32
  and theoretical perspectives into the academy.
• 2:37
  And they want all children to be included in
• 2:41
  classrooms with elite reading teachers so that
• 2:46
  all might achieve their full literacy potential.
• 2:52
  The only people the elite want to exclude would
• 2:55
  be state legislators who make very bad laws about
• 3:00
  reading instruction. And I've wandered off topic,
• 3:05
  so you see I'm not very smart. A smart person
• 3:10
  wouldn't have done that, but I'm smart enough
• 3:14
  to realize that when I have a plumbing problem,
• 3:18
  I don't call an electrician. Neither do I call
• 3:22
  a radio journalist or a profiteer dressed as
• 3:26
  a scholar. When I need to put in a new toilet,
• 3:30
  I remember what happened the last time I tried
• 3:33
  to do it myself. When I have a plumbing problem,
• 3:39
  I call the plumber. And I want that plumber to
• 3:44
  be elite. So in my not very smart way, let me
• 3:50
  talk about the academy. The academy, academia,
• 3:55
  refers to an intellectual ecosystem responsible
• 3:59
  for the generation, transmission, and preservation
• 4:03
  of knowledge. Within the academy, there are recognized
• 4:08
  branches of knowledge called academic fields.
• 4:11
  Members within each field promote and maintain
• 4:16
  academic standards related to research, scholarly
• 4:19
  work, and academic discourse. Reading instruction
• 4:24
  is part of an academic field, and within this
• 4:28
  academic field, a corpus of research -based knowledge
• 4:32
  is used to provide context for an ongoing academic
• 4:38
  discourse related to reading instruction. And
• 4:44
  this is the context in which constructive discussions
• 4:50
  about reading instruction best take place. Not
• 4:56
  a political context, but an academic context.
• 5:02
  So outside an academic context, extreme or outlying
• 5:12
  ideas can seem like good ideas. It's very easy
• 5:17
  to be snookered by important -sounding words
• 5:20
  like direct, explicit, systematic, structured,
• 5:24
  evidence -based, extensive, cumulative, multi
• 5:27
  -sensory, and orthographic mapping. Throw in
• 5:32
  some brain images along with a couple of big
• 5:36
  brain words such as occipital and neural pathways
• 5:40
  and neurotransmitters and state legislators are
• 5:45
  ready to hand over millions of dollars to for
• 5:49
  -profit entities. Now, outside an academic context,
• 5:56
  state legislators must rely on their own shallow
• 6:00
  and disjointed knowledge bases to understand
• 6:04
  reading instruction. And their knowledge bases
• 6:08
  are constructed largely by their own memories
• 6:12
  of their experiences learning to read as well
• 6:16
  as the emotions attached to them. However, these
• 6:22
  memories are distorted by the filter of time,
• 6:26
  perception, emotion, and other memories. Hence,
• 6:31
  memory is not always very accurate, and by itself,
• 6:36
  memory can impede rather than enhance one's understanding
• 6:40
  of things. Knowledge is needed to understand
• 6:44
  reading instruction. but not just any sort of
• 6:50
  knowledge. To truly understand reading instruction,
• 6:55
  you would want knowledge generated by elite scholars,
• 7:00
  researchers, and teachers. Without adequate knowledge,
• 7:06
  state legislators must rely on their own memory
• 7:10
  -based knowledge to build cognitive structures
• 7:13
  related to reading instruction. and a cognitive
• 7:18
  structure represents how knowledge is organized
• 7:22
  in long -term memory. Now, although highly inaccurate,
• 7:31
  state legislators use these cognitive structures
• 7:35
  to peer out at the world and to make sense of
• 7:39
  things. And from this perspective, state legislators
• 7:45
  Reading is sounding out words. To them, reading
• 7:49
  instruction is a settled science, and there's
• 7:52
  a massive reading crisis. More phonics is needed.
• 7:55
  Teachers don't know how to teach reading. College
• 7:58
  professors are teaching all the wrong things.
• 8:01
  And radio journalists are experts in reading
• 8:05
  instruction. robust academic discourse. Like
• 8:10
  any academic field, reading instruction is not
• 8:14
  a monolithic entity. People have different thoughts
• 8:19
  about things, and these thought variations are
• 8:23
  based on differing theoretical perspectives.
• 8:29
  These thought differences lead to healthy and
• 8:32
  robust academic discourse, and as a result, New
• 8:37
  questions are asked, new research is conducted,
• 8:40
  and the field of reading instruction continues
• 8:43
  to move forward. These differences also act as
• 8:48
  a form of checks and balances, keeping extreme
• 8:52
  or outlying ideas from being overemphasized.
• 8:57
  Now the field of literacy instruction was a healthy,
• 9:01
  vibrant place in the 90s and early aughts. But
• 9:04
  those who could not win an argument in an academic
• 9:07
  context pulled reading instruction, kicking and
• 9:12
  streaming into a political context. And in this
• 9:17
  context, the science of reading has become like
• 9:21
  bad religion. There's an intolerance of differing
• 9:26
  views. Certain knowledge is ignored or discredited.
• 9:30
  And there is an arrogance of certainty. Reading
• 9:34
  instruction is said to be a settled science,
• 9:38
  and healthy and robust academic discourse has
• 9:42
  largely disappeared. As a result, there is an
• 9:46
  inbreeding of ideas, deleterious cognitive mutations,
• 9:50
  and a de -evolution of the academic field. This
• 9:56
  is what happens when reading instruction becomes
• 9:59
  political. In conclusion, I am not very smart,
• 10:06
  but I'm smart enough to know that when you've
• 10:09
  got a plumbing problem, you call a plumber and
• 10:12
  hopefully that plumber is an elite plumber. This
• 10:17
  has been The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
• 10:19
  host, Dr. Andy Johnson.