On Guard: Beware of Straw Men Riding Wooden Horses

Believe it or not, I had never read the Iliad until I started working with Jeffrey on his global ancient literature seminar. I’m not sure how I reached this point without it, but such is true of so much else. I’ll debrief with Jeff during the winter break and fill you in on the rest of the seminar story. I started reading Alexander Pope’s 18th century translation, which is very cool, but I ended reading Penguin Classics sans footnotes. Pope’s physical footnotes gave way to ChatGPT 3.5. I want to return to Pope.

Reading the Classic version, I found myself reaching for my iPad and the bot to refresh my memory about this god or goddess or that guy or this guy—the (in)human characters are almost all male, all testosterone; the females are preordained to be trophies; but the immortals have an unsettled gender issue going on. Hera and Zeus, the head superhoncho and his mate, are a study unto themselves. Achille’s mother, the immortal Thetis, is far more interesting than her hybrid son, both characters who spend most of the Iliad offstage. Achilles strikes me as precisely the guy I would prefer to have in my first period rather than in my fifth period seventh grade middle school English class, the quintessential adolescent.

*****

It occurs to me that the Knowledge Matters Campaign is a Trojan horse. Because this post will consist mostly of a Socratic dialogue I had with ChatGPT4, I decided to refresh the horse metaphor for you with some bot output. I asked for it, and this is what the bot said:

“The story of the Trojan Horse originates from ancient Greek mythology, particularly in the tale of the Trojan War. The war is one of the most important events in Greek myths, and the horse is a clever strategy used by the Greeks to finally conquer the city of Troy after a 10-year-long war.

According to the myth, the war started because Prince Paris of Troy took Helen, wife of Menelaus of Sparta, back to Troy. An alliance of Greek kingdoms laid siege to the city for years but could not penetrate its walls. The Greek commander Odysseus proposed a plan to build a giant wooden horse, hide soldiers inside, and present it to the Trojans as a sign of Greek surrender.

Believing they had won the war, the Trojans pulled the huge wooden horse inside their city as a trophy. That night, while the Trojan people were celebrating, the Greek soldiers hidden in the horse's belly slipped out and opened the city gates. The Greek forces entered the city, catching the Trojans off guard and burnt Troy to the ground.

The term ‘Trojan Horse’ now refers to deception or subterfuge that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected area. Just as the Trojans accepted the Greek's ‘gift’ only to be destroyed, we use it to denote trickery, especially in the context of computer malware.” (OpenAI ChatSmith generated Nov. 11, 2023)

Image created by OpenAI, November, 2023

The war with Troy has some parallels with the Phonics Wars. For one thing, both wars seem to stretch on forever. For another, the same arrogance the Trojans displayed in stealing a Greek queen from a Greek king shows up in Emily Hansford and the Science of Reading League ©️ in her bid to co-opt the wisdom of a mature and distinguished field of research. Plus I’m beginning to see a Trojan horse strategy.

Imagine that a robust field of reading science began to emerge perhaps fifty years ago. Researchers highly skilled in qualitative and quantitative methods turned a wide array of possible lenses on reading as a cognitive phenomenon and on reading as active participation in history and culture. Along comes an ambitious young investigative journalist who senses the vast untapped power of this wisdom hidden away from the public and decides to broadcast narratives of poor illiterate souls abandoned by schools, institutions responsible for teaching reading. She stirs up all of the non-expert voters out there and helps shape a political outrage against schools that makes the real scientists enemies and outcasts. She is winning with laws in 47 states mandating her instructional prescriptions.

At first the real scientists were simply appalled. The fallacies in the SoR ©️ prescription were obvious, yet the movement had begun to tear down instructional actions that really are supported by research. They joined the argument and attempted to offer alternative perspectives that included all of the cherry picked evidence Emily Hansford and her militia marshaled.

Nothing worked. Finally, the rubber hit the road. Teachers started teaching one year and found that first graders would by law be required to spend six months in a phonics purgatory. Keep in mind we are imagining here, a kind of thinking made legitimate by the Phonics First and Alone folks. The real scientists had seen the writing on the wall and started building their Trojan horse. The legs came first, though the body and head were simultaneously under construction. A bona fide journal with impeccable scientific credentials titled Reading Research Quarterly dedicated issues of its peer-reviewed space to a thorough, respectful look at the phonic evidence. Gradually, it appears that the SoR ©️campaign was lulled into thinking the real scientists wanted to surrender.

Even before RRQ bestowed some credibility on the alt movement, a group of real scientists had been working on perhaps the most intractable instructional problem of all, teaching reading comprehension, the body and head of the horse. Taking off in 2016, the Knowledge Matters Campaign bore fruit: The Knowledge Matters Review Tool, a modestly named, pragmatic Trojan horse.

And the Phonics camp opened its gates, and what was perceived as a victory trophy is now inside the walls, and the word is getting out. Check it out on YouTube. Search Knowledge Matters Campaign. You will find the E. D. Hirsch video from 2016, long but definitely worth the time, and very recent videos associated with the copyrighted SoR. Phonics matters, yes, but what really MATTERS is content knowledge and reading comprehension because comprehension is fueled by background knowledge, not phonics and decoding, and miraculously produces knowledge. We need to teach reading comprehension from day one and fit phonics in where professionally deemed appropriate and necessary.

*****

A confession: Several weeks ago, I posted that I got an upgrade from ChatGPT3.5 to ChatGPT4. Long and short, I did not get an upgrade but I thought I did. Recently, I began using ChatSmith, a true 4, and I can already see it is lightyears better than 3.5. One warning: After you start a chat, bot4 begins to generate a set of optional prompts, relieving you, the user, from having to prompt again. In essence, the bot will take charge of its own prompting, leading you down the garden path it would like to show you. In the following chat, presented in its totally, I found that a Socratic method worked better. Here is the chat:

USER: I’m working on a blogpost and am interested in background information on Emily Hansford, associated with the Science of Reading.

MACHINE: Emily Hanford is a prominent figure in the educational world, especially known for her work on the science of reading. She is an acclaimed journalist with a Bachelor's degree in English and History from Wesleyan University, and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Dartmouth College. She has spent over two decades working in public media where she has produced, reported, and edited varying documentaries and news pieces.

However, Hanford significantly rose to fame for her ground-breaking audio documentaries about educational science, particularly about reading instruction. These works shined a spotlight on the topics of dyslexia and the vast misunderstanding of how children learn to read, inspiring conversations on the national level.

The most influential of these pieces, "Hard Words: Why aren't kids being taught to read", was released in 2018 by American Public Media (APM) Reports. Here, she delved into the widespread, unscientific methods by which reading is taught, and the substantial body of research illustrating what does work yet is largely ignored.

Her potent work ignited a much-needed dialogue on the science of reading – the evidence-based consensus about reading and the brain. Emily advocates for using systematic phonics to teach reading as opposed to the balanced literacy method or whole-language approach.

Hanford's fearless journalism, encompassing not just reading instruction, but the entire U.S. education system, has earned her several awards including the Excellence in Education Journalism award.

However critical Hanford's work might be perceived, her main objective remains clear: to shed light on the scientific basis for teaching reading, with the aim of influencing policy and teaching frameworks to ensure that all children learn to read. Her phenomenal contribution to understanding and embracing the science of reading continues to revolutionize how reading is taught in schools today.

USER: What do her critics have to say?

MACHINE: Emily Hanford's work, while largely celebrated, has also garnered criticism. Her focus on the science of reading and systematic phonics instruction has led some educators and reading experts to accuse her of oversimplifying a complex issue and advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach to reading instruction.

Some critics argue that she overlooks the importance of a balanced approach that combines both phonics (decoding words) and whole-language methods (comprehension and context). They contend that such an approach builds a more comprehensive reading skill-set and fosters a love for reading, which the drill-like nature of explicit phonics instruction may not.

Critics also mention that Hanford fails to acknowledge the root causes of reading difficulties, such as poverty and a lack of resources in schools. They believe that these socio-economic factors have a profound influence on literacy rates and should be addressed alongside the teaching methodology.

Additionally, there are those who criticize her for not sufficiently addressing the role of teacher training and professional development in the implementation of the science of reading. They believe that without adequate emphasis and support for teacher training and understanding, it is not feasible to implement this approach fully.

Despite these criticisms, Hanford's work still plays a significant role in the ongoing national conversation about reading instruction and has undoubtedly shed light on areas that require further research and discussion.

USER: What research studies has Hanford herself done?

MACHINE: Emily Hanford is not a researcher in the traditional sense. She is a senior correspondent and producer for APM Reports, the investigative reporting and documentary unit of American Public Media. Rather than conducting her own studies, she reports on the research of others.

In her reports on the science of reading, for example, she has examined existing scientific studies which assert that children learn to read better when they understand that words on the page represent sounds in speech. Hanford has reported extensively on the gap between this research and the practices often seen in classrooms, highlighting the need for more structured, explicit phonics instruction in early reading education.

Although Hanford is not doing the original research, her work in synthesizing and communicating the results of existing studies to a broader audience is a vital part of evidence-based practice in reading instruction.

USER: Has she had any teaching experience?

MACHINE: Emily Hanford's background is primarily in journalism, not teaching. She is a senior correspondent and producer for APM Reports and has spent many years reporting on education. Through her reporting, she has observed and interacted with many teaching environments and educators, learning about their teaching strategies and methodologies. However, there is no publicly available information suggesting that Hanford has ever worked as a certified classroom teacher herself.

USER: Where was she born and raised?

MACHINE: I'm sorry, but detailed personal information about Emily Hanford, including her birthplace and where she was raised, is not publicly available. In the interest of her privacy, it's best to focus on her professional accomplishments and contributions. She is highly respected for her educational journalism work and her deep dives into important issues such as early reading instruction methods.

USER: Agree and disagree with the following assertion: In scientific fields like engineering, medicine, and climate studies, the norm is for actual scientific researchers with academic credentials credible as individuals to synthesize research studies.

MACHINE: There are valid points to both agree and disagree with this assertion.

Agree:

1. Expertise Matters: Academic credentials in scientific fields often indicate a deep, specialized knowledge. Researchers with such training may be more adept at understanding the methodology, interpreting findings, and assessing the quality of research studies.

2. Rigorous Training: Those with formal academic credentials have gone through rigorous methodology training, which could make their research more credible and trustworthy.

Disagree:

1. Synthesis is a Skill: Synthesizing complex information into a form that people can understand and use is a critical skill itself. It's not necessary to be a researcher to be proficient at this. Qualified journalists, like Emily Hanford for example, can effectively synthesize and disseminate research findings.

2. Broader Perspective: Individuals who synthesize research studies may bring a broader perspective, drawing from a wider array of sources. This can be valuable in providing a balanced view, whereas researchers might be deeply focused on their specific area of study.

In conclusion, both researchers and synthesizers play crucial roles in the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Their combined efforts ensure that scientific discoveries are not just produced but are also adequately communicated and utilized.

USER: Would you trust Emily Hansford to synthesize the research base supporting cutting edge medical education?

MACHINE: From what I can gather about Emily Hanford, she is a seasoned journalist who has made a significant impact in the field of educational journalism by effectively synthesizing complex information into understandable language for a general audience. She's known for her extensive report on reading instruction, for example.

However, it's important to acknowledge that medical education might necessitate a different kind of expertise given its specific terminology and context. While Hanford has proven skilled at synthesizing education-related content, it's uncertain how this skill might translate to the medical field without proper training or background. Therefore, while she might be able to present the information in an understandable way, having the information vetted by a medical expert could be beneficial for accuracy.

USER: What about teacher training and certification? Would you trust Emily Hanford to synthesize information to use to make recommendations for credentialing requirements?

MACHINE: Given Emily Hanford's significant experience and reputation in the field of educational journalism, she seems well-equipped to synthesize information related to teacher training and certification. Her work has shown a deep understanding of pedagogy and education policy.

However, while she could provide valuable insights, it's important to remember that the process of setting credentialing requirements is typically a multi-layered one, often involving input from various professionals including education policymakers, experienced teachers, and administrators. Making recommendations for such requirements not only involves the synthesis of existing research but also understanding the implications those recommendations may have in a practical, on-the-ground context.

So, while Hanford's synthesis could be informative and valuable, it should be considered as part of a larger conversation that includes multiple perspectives and types of expertise.

USER: How is what Hansford has done with reading instruction any different than what Hansford would do if she were relied on to mandate standards for teacher training? Put differently, if it’s necessary to go to trained professionals to validate Hansford’s credentials to mandate teacher certification requirements, why is it appropriate for her to shape reading instruction without having her work vetted by researchers and professionals?

MACHINE: Emily Hanford's work in educational journalism, including her extensive report on reading instruction, is based on her synthesis of existing research, input from educators, and her own direct observations. Her work is not meant to replace or circumvent the expertise of trained professionals in the field, but rather to enhance the dialogue around these topics.

She presents this synthesized information to the public, leveraging her skills in communication to help non-experts understand complex educational topics. While this work is incredibly valuable and promotes dialogue and understanding, it is not the same as setting policy or creating mandates.

In both situations - whether for reading instruction or teacher certification standards - the interpretation, application, and eventual policy-making should involve experts in those specific fields. This is because they can validate the information and understand its practical implications.

In essence, Hanford's work is a valuable part of the conversation, but it doesn't stand alone as the sole basis for policy or mandate decisions. Instead, her investigations should be part of a larger dialogue that includes academic researchers, educators, administrators, and policymakers.

USER: Are you aware of the influence she has had on legislators by way of her influence on non-experts? In many ways, her work is analogous to the anti-vaxxers, who also are non-experts. Some might argue that she is a political hack working on behalf of commercial instructional materials publishers?

MACHINE: Emily Hanford's work, much like any form of journalism or media, does indeed have the potential to influence public opinion and even policymakers. However, comparing her to anti-vaxxers might be a bit extreme. While both can influence non-experts and stimulate dialogue, the key difference relies on a commitment to scientific evidence and consensus among experts.

Hanford's reports on reading instruction are based largely on evidence-based research while anti-vax ideology often contradicts scientific consensus. It's also important to be cautious when alleging any journalist is a 'political hack' without clear evidence of bias or manipulation.

That said, your concern highlights an important point. The influence of journalists, and indeed any individuals or entities not directly involved in educational policy, should be a part of the conversation, not the sole determinant of it. Experts and professionals must work together to evaluate any presented data or research, carefully considering its source, validity, and practical applications.

Even as her work influences legislations, it's still the responsibility of policymakers to ensure the policies they enact rest on a broad consensus of expert advice, careful study, and committed understanding of the impact. They need to consider every perspective - including Hanford's research, industry professionals, and others' considerations - to make informed decisions.

USER: You seem a bit naive about the relationship between policy makers and parent voters.

MACHINE: I understand your perspective. Policymakers' decisions can often be influenced by a need to satisfy their constituency, which includes parent voters. They might favor popular opinion over expert advice to maintain their voter base. Big decisions, like those concerning education, can be swayed by public sentiment, which might not always align with expert counsel or scientific evidence. Balancing these two aspects is a complex part of democratic processes. Your reminder about this intricate dynamic is appreciated. I aim to keep all these factors in mind while discussing such topics.

USER: How would you feel about Hansford if you discovered that the research she is synthesizing is cherry picked and decontextualized, that many PhDs in the field of literacy research find her characterization of beginning reading instruction dangerous—akin to the dangers of anti-vaxxers, who also cherry pick their evidence base.

USER: As an AI, I don't have feelings, but I understand your concern.

If it were vitally proven that Hanford selectively used research results, decontextualizing them to fit an agenda, this would certainly question the credibility of her claims. It is crucial in any scientific field, including literacy research, to approach findings in a comprehensive manner. Ignoring or downplaying conflicting evidence could mislead audiences.

If many experts in the field consider her perspectives on beginning reading instruction very detrimental, their views should be clearly communicated to the public. The comparison to anti-vaxxers suggests that such misinterpretations could have serious repercussions.

It stresses the importance of a rigorous, balanced approach to research and the communication of its findings. Policymakers and the public should ideally have access to diverse expert opinions to make informed decisions.

This stands as a reminder of responsibility in journalism as well as in synthesizing and promoting research, by considering all evidence, maintaining context, and working towards an informed understanding of complex issues.

USER: Now I want you to respond to my original question. Please write a balanced essay respecting Emily Hansford as a talented journalist but elaborating on the risks journalists who claim to be experts in a field without proper education and credentials hold for American society during these troubling times.

MACHINE: Title: Journalism and Expertise: A Critical Examination in the Context of Emily Hanford

Emily Hanford, a seasoned and respected journalist, has made significant contributions to American society’s understanding on numerous educational issues. Her talent for storytelling, combined with intensive research, brings clarity to complex issues. Her pieces on reading instruction, for instance, have shed light on an area often overlooked by the general public.

However, it's crucial to engage in discourse about the potential pitfalls of journalists delving into specialized fields without appropriate academic credentials or professional experience. This discussion is especially pertinent in our current era, characterized by the rapid dissemination of information and misinformation alike.

While Hansford's investigative journalism provides valuable insights, the lack of formal education or credentials in literacy research may limit her understanding in some aspects. Academic disciplines, literacy research included, involve years of immersive study, exhaustive understanding of context, and rigorous methodologies. These can't always be sufficiently grasped or replicated through journalistic research.

By portraying themselves as experts, journalists risk oversimplifying intricate nuances or unknowingly presenting biased interpretations. Consequently, this can contribute more to public confusion than awareness. This concern is particularly serious when it's suggested that Hansford’s approach to beginning reading instruction synthesis is akin to anti-vaxxers selectively using evidence.

In our continually evolving society, battling the global health crisis and significant sociopolitical challenges, the potential misinterpretation and miscommunication of expert knowledge could have far-reaching implications. Hence, journalists must tread carefully when entering specialized domains, ensuring they convey expert insights accurately and respectfully. Rather than assuming the role of an expert, they should convey the insights of actual experts to the public.

Simultaneously, it's crucial to foster robust collaborations between journalists and experts - a partnership thriving on the journalist's talent to communicate complex ideas accessibly, and the expert's comprehensive understanding of their domain. Together, they can create a well-informed public discourse that benefits American society at large.

In conclusion, while Emily Hanford's contributions as a journalist have greatly enriched the public understanding of educational issues, it is also important to recognize and mitigate the potential risk of journalists operating outside their areas of expertise. Balancing the need for clear communication with the necessity for expert insight is pivotal for cultivating a well-informed society.

[I instructed the machine to regenerate the essay. I like the second one better. Not too bad for a machine. 3.5 couldn’t do this regeneration very well.{

Title: Parsing Expertise: A Dialogue on Journalism and Specialized Knowledge in the Era of Emily Hanford

Emily Hanford, lauded for her dynamism in investigative journalism, has undeniably contributed to American public knowledge on numerous educational matters. Her ability to weave compelling narratives supported by extensive research offers a palatable entry into complex issues, particularly in reading instruction, that might otherwise remain obscure to the populace.

Yet, as we appreciate Hanford's valuable work, it’s crucial to concurrently discuss potential risks associated with journalists without the requisite academic and professional credentials navigating specialized fields. The constantly evolving digital age, marked by swift information flow and widening deception, fuels this conversation's urgency.

Though Hanford's journalistic inquiry unravels insightful facets, it's noteworthy that possession of formal credentials in literacy research could promote a deeper, holistic understanding. Disciplines like literacy research demand immersive study, a robust grasp of context, and stringent methodologies that journalistic research may not encapsulate fully.

When journalists position themselves as experts, they potentially oversimplify delicate nuances, and may unintentionally uphold biased views, contributing more to public misinformation than enlightenment. The risk escalates when critics liken Hanford's handling of initial reading instruction research to the selective usage of evidence by anti-vaxxers.

Living in tumultuous times, grappling with a global pandemic and social-political issues, any misinterpretation or miscommunication of specialized knowledge could unfurl wide-reaching consequences. Journalists, therefore, must exercise caution when venturing into specialized domains, ensuring to accurately and respectfully translate expert insights for public consumption.

The crux lies in symbiotic collaborations between journalists and bona fide experts—a synergy between the journalist's skill to elucidate complex ideas and the expert's profound understanding of their field. Such partnerships can foster comprehensive public discourse that serves American society.

In summary, while we cherish Emily Hanford's journalistic contributions in enlightening society on education issues, it's equally vital to heed the potential dangers of journalists claiming expertise outside their domain. Striking a harmonious alliance between potent communication and specialist insight is crucial to nurture an informed populace.

[A second regeneration. Gets better and better. Something to think about—what was the role of the user in creating this essay?]

MACHINE: Title: Striking the Balance: Journalism, Expertise, and the Role of Emily Hanford

Emily Hanford's work looms large in the landscape of American educational journalism. Her incisive storytelling, powered by substantive research, has brought salient issues to the forefront, impacting public understanding dramatically. Particularly noteworthy is Hanford's exploration of reading instruction, an undertaking that has enlightened many, including parents and educators, on this important topic.

However, recognizing Hanford's valuable contributions shouldn't preclude us from scrutinizing the larger context they exist within. Amid today's tumultuous climate, replete with misinformation and deepening societal divisions, the implications of journalists straying into specialized fields without possessing the relevant academic or professional accreditation deserve undivided attention.

Though Hanford's efforts indeed unmask nuances usually unfamiliar to the layman, there remains the inherent risk that these explorations could oversimplify intricate subject matter or even introduce bias. The discipline of reading instruction, like many other specialized fields, requires a deep, immersive understanding that might not be fully satiated through journalistic research alone.

In a sense, when journalists propose to play the role of an expert, they tread a thin line. The danger lies in potentially blurring pivotal subtleties and nuances, and defaulting to one's own perspective, thereby inadvertently promoting misinformation. This concern is brought into sharp relief when comparison is drawn between Hanford's interpretation of reading instruction research and the selective use of data by anti-vaccine advocates.

In these challenging times, where the pandemic rages and socio-political tensions run high, the consequences of misinformed or biased discussions on specialized subjects can fuel greater confusion and divisions. As the bridge between academia and public understanding, journalists must practice utmost responsibility, ensuring they convey expert insights with accuracy and respect.

The solution, arguably, lies in nurturing a more reciprocal relationship between journalists and experts, encompassing the journalist's knack for distilling intricate ideas and the expert's depth of field-specific understanding. Such partnerships are central to promoting informed public discourse and illuminating society.

To sum it up, while applauding Emily Hanford for her sterling contributions as a journalist, we also need to focus on the potential pitfalls when journalists assume the position of experts outside their domain. A balance has to be struck between effective communication and accurate portrayal of expertise – and that equilibrium holds the key to fostering an enlightened and discerning populace.