Floridi’s Levels of Abstraction (LoA): From Reading Recovery to Writing Instruction
Part 1 of a MultiEssay Series
Teaching effectively depends on the ability to observe, interpret, and respond to student learning activity in real time. The key is to understand what, when, and why to observe. Luciano Floridi's (2008)1 analytical tool Levels of Abstraction (LoA) offers a framework for making explicit and coherent the observables that drive instructional decisions. This essay serves as an introduction to pedagogical applications of LoA to build models of critical aspects of literacy learning.
What LoA Offers
Clarifying how teachers collectively understand not just what they see in student performance, but what they might look for, is the first step in robust assessment for learning.
Certain observations matter more than others, depending on the level of abstraction at which learning is being analyzed. While teachers cannot predict exactly which level will be most informative at any given moment—since this depends on how the learner behaves and responds—they can anticipate that as learning progresses through developmental phases of increasing complexity, the levels of abstraction requiring attention will also increase in sophistication.
At its core, the LoA method serves as an epistemological framework for analyzing complex systems—in our case, learning systems—without falling into category errors or unproductive debates. As Floridi explains, "specifying the LoA means clarifying, from the outset, the range of questions that (a) can be meaningfully asked and (b) are answerable in principle."
Consider a Reading Recovery teacher observing a struggling reader. At the letter-level LoA, meaningful questions include "Can the child identify this letter?" or "Does the child associate this letter with this sound?" But questions like "Does the child understand the story's theme?" cannot be meaningfully asked or answered at this level—they belong to the text-comprehension LoA. Specifying the LoA prevents category errors and focuses observation appropriately.
For teachers, this framework translates to understanding which aspects of student performance are meaningful indicators of learning at any given moment and which may be misleading or irrelevant.
The Nature of Levels of Abstraction
The LoA method consists of carefully defined "observables"—interpreted typed variables that represent features of the system under study. In early reading teaching and learning contexts, these observables might include anything from a student's ability to segment individual phonemes to their capacity for making inferences across texts.
These observables are moderated by predicates that constrain the observable within clear limits, creating a formal structure for pedagogical analysis. To illustrate how this works in practice, consider the observable "self-correction behavior" in a Reading Recovery lesson.
We can define this systematically: the variable name is "self-correction frequency," measured as corrections per 100 words of challenging text (ranging from 0 to 5+), and interpreted as representing the child's developing ability to monitor their own reading and fix decoding errors when meaning breaks down.
This observable sits within a formal structure for pedagogical analysis. In our self-correction example, the constraining predicate might be: "Self-correction is meaningful only when the child has made an initial error AND recognizes that error AND attempts to fix it." This predicate ensures we're not counting random re-reading or teacher-prompted corrections as evidence of strategic self-monitoring.
Multiple LoAs can be organized into what Floridi terms a "gradient of abstractions," which formalizes the relationships between different levels of analysis. For example, self-correction behavior could be embedded in a more abstract category perhaps called comprehension monitoring.
Two particularly useful types are "disjoint" gradients with complementary views and "nested" gradients providing increasingly detailed information. Disjoint gradients examine completely separate aspects that don't overlap. For example, one LoA focuses on phonemic awareness (can the child identify individual sounds?). Another LoA focuses on comprehension (does the child understand story meaning?). These are separate systems that can be observed independently.
Nested gradients zoom in with increasing detail on the same phenomenon. A broad LoA like "Can the child read this sentence fluently?" can downshift to a concrete LoA: "Which words does the child stumble on?" The most concrete LoA might be "Which letter-sound relationships cause difficulty?"
Each nested level provides more specific information about the same reading behavior, while disjoint levels examine completely different aspects of literacy development.
The method's utility stems from its ability to navigate complexity through structured simplification. As Floridi notes, it does "for discrete disciplines, what differential and integral calculus do for understanding the complex analogue phenomena of science and engineering."
In education, this means we can understand the intricate process of learning by examining it at different levels of abstraction without losing sight of how these levels connect. This organization allows educators to understand student learning at multiple levels of complexity simultaneously—from individual skill acquisition to broader literacy development.
LoA in Action: Reading Recovery as Exemplar
Reading Recovery, developed by Marie Clay, provides an excellent example of how LoA functions in literacy pedagogy, even when not explicitly named as such. The program's diagnostic and instructional framework operates across multiple levels of abstraction, each revealing different aspects of a struggling reader's needs and progress.
Observable Level 1: Text-Level Performance
At the most abstract level, Reading Recovery teachers observe whether a child can read a complete text with understanding and fluency. This level focuses on observables such as:
- Overall comprehension of story meaning
-Ability to maintain momentum through connected text
- Strategic problem-solving when meaning breaks down
At this level, a teacher might observe that six-year-old Marcus can read familiar texts fluently but struggles when encountering new books at the same level. This observable suggests the need for analysis at a more concrete level.
Observable Level 2: Strategic Processing
Moving to a more detailed LoA, Reading Recovery teachers examine the reading strategies children employ. Key observables include:
- Integration of meaning, structure, and visual information
- Self-monitoring behaviors (noticing errors)
- Self-correction strategies
- Cross-checking between information sources
Returning to Marcus, the teacher might observe that he relies heavily on visual information (what the letters look like) but rarely checks whether his reading makes sense. This pattern of observables reveals specific strategic gaps that instruction can address.
Observable Level 3: Letter-Level Knowledge
At the most concrete level, teachers examine foundational letter and sound knowledge:
- Letter identification in various fonts and contexts
- Sound-symbol relationships
- Visual discrimination abilities
- Motor control in letter formation
For Marcus, analysis at this level might reveal solid letter-sound knowledge but difficulty recognizing letters in connected text versus isolation—an observable that helps explain his over-reliance on visual processing at the strategic level.
The Gradient in Action: Nested Analysis
What makes Reading Recovery pedagogically powerful is how these levels function as a nested gradient of abstractions. Each level provides insight into different aspects of reading development, and information flows both up and down the gradient.
If Marcus struggles at the text level (Level 1), his teacher examines his strategic processing (Level 2) to understand why. If strategic analysis reveals over-reliance on visual information, the teacher might examine letter-level knowledge (Level 3) to determine whether the issue stems from uncertain foundational knowledge or from difficulty integrating multiple information sources.
Crucially, instruction can then target the appropriate level. If the issue is integration of information sources (Level 2), the teacher won't spend time on letter identification (Level 3) but will design experiences that help Marcus learn to cross-check meaning with visual information. This prevents the common educational error of defaulting to the most concrete level (letters and sounds) when problems appear at more abstract levels.
Avoiding Pedagogical Category Mistakes
The LoA framework helps Reading Recovery teachers avoid what Floridi calls "category mistakes"—analyzing phenomena at inappropriate levels of abstraction. For instance, if a child struggles with text comprehension (Level 1), it would be a category mistake to assume the problem necessarily lies in phonics knowledge (Level 3) without first examining strategic processing (Level 2).
This framework also prevents what we might call "level-shifting errors," where teachers oscillate between levels without recognizing the relationships between them. A teacher might observe that a child struggles with fluency (Level 1) and immediately drill sight words (Level 3) without considering whether the fluency problem stems from inadequate strategic processing (Level 2).
Implications for Pedagogical Practice
The LoA method offers several advantages for educational practice:
Diagnostic Precision: By operating across multiple levels simultaneously, teachers can pinpoint learning difficulties more accurately and avoid over- or under-diagnosing problems.
Instructional Targeting: Understanding which level of abstraction reveals the most significant learning needs helps teachers design instruction that addresses root causes rather than symptoms.
Progress Monitoring: Changes at one level of abstraction often indicate development that may not yet be visible at other levels, providing early indicators of learning progress.
Communication Clarity: The framework provides a common language for discussing student learning across different educational contexts and stakeholders.
From Reading to Writing: Setting the Stage
While Reading Recovery demonstrates LoA principles in reading instruction, the framework has even broader applications in literacy education. Writing instruction, with its complex interplay of cognitive, linguistic, and social processes, presents particular challenges for educators trying to understand what matters most in student development.
As we move from reading to writing instruction, the need for clear analytical frameworks becomes even more pressing. Writing involves not just the reception of meaning (as in reading) but its active construction across multiple dimensions—from transcription skills to rhetorical awareness. The LoA method provides a way to organize this complexity without losing sight of how different aspects of writing development interconnect.
Moreover, as artificial intelligence increasingly influences how we understand writing and textual production, educators need robust frameworks for distinguishing between different types of observable behaviors and understanding what they reveal about authentic learning. The LoA method, proven effective in reading instruction through approaches like Reading Recovery, offers a foundation for reconceptualizing writing pedagogy in an era of rapid technological change.
In the four essays that follow, we will explore how this same analytical framework can transform our understanding of writing instruction, helping teachers navigate the complex landscape of observables that characterize developing writers through systematic simplification while maintaining clear sight of what matters most for student growth and learning.
https://philarchive.org/archive/FLOLOA
A logical analytical framework for assessing reading development. and potentially for writing. Essential reading for reading educators.
"What makes Reading Recovery pedagogically powerful is how these levels function as a nested gradient of abstractions. Each level provides insight into different aspects of reading development, and information flows both up and down the gradient."