Lost in Translation - the Science of Reading edition
autside.substack.com
A recent article discusses the dangers of mainstream media and journalists oversimplifying or misrepresenting scientific research when translating it for public consumption. It uses the example of Malcolm Gladwell popularizing psychologist Anders Ericsson's work in "Outliers" in reductive ways that spread misconceptions.
The article then relates this to the current "science of reading" (SOR) movement, arguing that journalists like Emily Hanford have also oversimplified reading research and spread the myth it is "settled science." Meanwhile, the nuanced ongoing research represented by scholars like Nell Duke (or your humble host) that shows reading science is more complex has been ignored.
As I’ve illustrated many times, these journalistic oversimplifications and misrepresentations have informed state legislation policies mandating restrictive reading programs and practices not supported by research. The article argues this parallels the Gladwell / Ericsson case and shows the consequences of delegating education of the public on important issues to potentially sensationalist journalism instead of credible peer-reviewed research.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Lost in Translation - the Science of Reading edition
Lost in Translation - the Science of Reading edition
Lost in Translation - the Science of Reading edition
A recent article discusses the dangers of mainstream media and journalists oversimplifying or misrepresenting scientific research when translating it for public consumption. It uses the example of Malcolm Gladwell popularizing psychologist Anders Ericsson's work in "Outliers" in reductive ways that spread misconceptions.
The article then relates this to the current "science of reading" (SOR) movement, arguing that journalists like Emily Hanford have also oversimplified reading research and spread the myth it is "settled science." Meanwhile, the nuanced ongoing research represented by scholars like Nell Duke (or your humble host) that shows reading science is more complex has been ignored.
As I’ve illustrated many times, these journalistic oversimplifications and misrepresentations have informed state legislation policies mandating restrictive reading programs and practices not supported by research. The article argues this parallels the Gladwell / Ericsson case and shows the consequences of delegating education of the public on important issues to potentially sensationalist journalism instead of credible peer-reviewed research.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.