Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / A Journalist is NOT a Literacy Scholar

Transcript

A Journalist is NOT a Literacy Scholar · The Reading Instruction Show

• 0:01
  This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
• 0:04
  host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Today we're
• 0:07
  talking about the difference between literacy
• 0:10
  scholars and journalists, an important thing
• 0:14
  to know. Journalists write stories. People tell
• 0:20
  them things, they write it down, they put it
• 0:23
  together to create a story. They are writing
• 0:27
  for impact versus accuracy. Often. For example,
• 0:34
  Sarah Schwartz writes a lot of stuff. She is
• 0:39
  a journalist. Accuracy doesn't really matter
• 0:42
  for her. A new low, she says. Well, she's just
• 0:45
  writing that. She's choosing what to look for.
• 0:48
  There's no peer review in what she writes. She's
• 0:52
  just writing stuff. Is this really a new low?
• 0:55
  Well, natural fluctuations over time. What she's
• 1:00
  writing about is conveniently inaccurate. These
• 1:04
  are eighth grade scores. It's not a new low.
• 1:07
  Yes, we had the COVID dip and we're still coping
• 1:09
  with that. And besides, her article was written
• 1:14
  at the end of 2025, Sarah Schwartz. We've been
• 1:18
  making a big deal about all this new legislation
• 1:21
  and science of reading. Look at the years when
• 1:25
  all this legislation has passed. 2019, 21, 22,
• 1:31
  23, 24. So you're saying a new low? Correlation?
• 1:37
  Hmm. Sounds like all this new science of reading
• 1:41
  legislation is causing this new low. If The science
• 1:46
  of reading was to create miracles. We should
• 1:49
  be expecting to see miracle upon miracle by now.
• 1:54
  Journalists are welcome into our academic discussion,
• 1:58
  but they should not get a free pass. Publish
• 2:02
  in an academic journal, speak at a conference
• 2:06
  that allows for discussion, get alternative points
• 2:10
  of view, cite specific research. Scholars are
• 2:14
  subjected to blind peer review. And again, Sarah
• 2:19
  Schwartz is one. She and Emily Hanford, they're
• 2:23
  just saying stuff. There's no checks and balances.
• 2:26
  She's talking about queuing and she doesn't even
• 2:30
  know what queuing is. Journalists are not literacy
• 2:35
  scholars. Research has shown. All right, scholars
• 2:40
  can't get away with just saying, Research has
• 2:42
  shown. What research? Show me, show them for
• 2:46
  who, for what? You can't just say stuff. And
• 2:51
  in bizarro world, American public media is cited
• 2:56
  as a source of academic information and too often
• 3:00
  we are living in that bizarro world. Scholars
• 3:05
  must rely on research, not data. Not surveys,
• 3:11
  anecdotal evidence, not interviews, but research.
• 3:15
  And research is not research unless and until
• 3:18
  it has been subjected to blind peer review and
• 3:23
  published in an academic journal. Here's the
• 3:28
  process. Someone conducts a research. They write
• 3:32
  it up. They send it to a journal. The editor
• 3:35
  sends it to people who are experts in their field,
• 3:39
  usually two to five. Blind peer review because
• 3:43
  these reviewers do not know who wrote the manuscript
• 3:47
  and the manuscript writer does not know who the
• 3:51
  reviewers are. The reviewers assess and evaluate.
• 3:56
  They give their comments and criticisms and they
• 3:59
  make a recommendation either to accept, accept
• 4:03
  with revisions, or reject. The editor takes all
• 4:08
  that and the editor makes the final decision
• 4:11
  and often there's back and forth between the
• 4:14
  writer and the editor before it's published.
• 4:17
  That's a lot of filters there. Let's see what
• 4:20
  happens with the journalists. Oh, people tell
• 4:23
  you things, you write it down, you send it to
• 4:26
  your editor, and they publish things. Not a lot
• 4:30
  of filters there, no blind peer review by experts
• 4:33
  in the field. And if you write stuff on the internet,
• 4:38
  you just think of stuff and you write it. Karen
• 4:41
  Viatas and Kelsey Piper wrote this hilarious
• 4:45
  thing on a substack called The Argument. And
• 4:49
  if you want a good laugh, go ahead and go there.
• 4:52
  Lots of laughs there. A scholar is different
• 4:54
  from a journalist. Anecdotal evidence, which
• 4:58
  journalists rely on, is different from evidence.
• 5:01
  And being popular. is different from being right.
• 5:05
  Now, see if you can tell me which one of these
• 5:08
  refer to a journalist and which one to a scholar.
• 5:13
  The work is submitted to Blind Peer Review. They
• 5:17
  write stuff. Hmm, scholar journalists have extensive
• 5:22
  background knowledge about what they write. They
• 5:26
  write what people tell them. Important. Cites
• 5:30
  specific research when making a research -based
• 5:33
  claim. Just says research has shown, scientists
• 5:38
  are telling, it has been proven that. Understands
• 5:43
  the basic elements of science in determining
• 5:47
  causality. Randomly assigns causality. Oh, scores
• 5:53
  are going down, it's that. Correlation does not
• 5:57
  infer or imply causation. If two things occur
• 6:02
  together, one must have caused the other to occur.
• 6:08
  Generalized to larger population only if the
• 6:11
  sample is similar and ample. Generalized to large
• 6:17
  populations based on a sample size of one or
• 6:19
  two. It happened to this kid, therefore it happens
• 6:23
  to all kids. This is what my daughter did in
• 6:26
  New York, therefore all of New York. Reading
• 6:29
  curriculum is bad. Read Jessica Winter's article.
• 6:34
  Uses anecdotal evidence and experiences to illustrate
• 6:39
  research versus using it as research. Considers
• 6:47
  journalists to be journalists. Considers journalists
• 6:51
  to be valid sources. Writes research, scholarly
• 6:55
  articles and books. Writes stories and columns.
• 7:01
  Writes for an audience with some knowledge and
• 7:03
  expertise. Writes for an audience with little
• 7:06
  knowledge or expertise. Strives for objectivity,
• 7:11
  reliability and validity reports limitations.
• 7:16
  Strives for accuracy creates the illusion of
• 7:20
  objectivity does not report limitations or conflicts.
• 7:24
  considers themselves to be experts because they
• 7:27
  are, considers themselves experts on a subject
• 7:31
  because they write about it, understands the
• 7:35
  basics of science and research, understands the
• 7:39
  basics of journalism. Who might be able to provide
• 7:45
  the best information about reading instruction?
• 7:50
  Expertise is important in conducting research
• 7:54
  and scholarly work in any field. You know what
• 7:59
  questions to ask. You understand the constics.
• 8:02
  You know what data to collect. You understand
• 8:05
  how to collect the data. You understand how to
• 8:09
  make inferences based on the data. You understand
• 8:12
  the limitations of data. You understand the difference
• 8:15
  between data and research. Why is scholarship
• 8:21
  knowledge and expertise being shunned in favor
• 8:25
  of common sense, business sense, and political
• 8:28
  sense? I welcome journalists into our academic
• 8:33
  conversations, but you do not get a free pass
• 8:37
  on ignorance. You need some background knowledge
• 8:40
  to have the conversation. It's really hard and
• 8:44
  I've tried to have conversations with journalists
• 8:46
  who have shallow and disjointed knowledge base
• 8:50
  and I'm often having to correct the questions
• 8:53
  they ask. This has been the Reading Instruction
• 8:58
  Show. I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.