"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."
Your article really got me thinking! I came up with a visual and philosophical approach to compliment Floridi's Levels of Abstraction (LoA): https://dustinmattison.substack.com/p/tools-for-teaching-writing-that-ai I look forward to seeing your next articles about how to apply the LoA concepts to writing.
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts here, Terry and am very much looking forward to the next essays in the series. I thought the application of Floridi's concepts to the field of reading assessment was very interesting and I wondered if you are familiar with Lexplore's eye-tracking system which gives the teacher a remarkably 'low altitude' insight into a child's reading ability?
I’m not familiar with this eye tracking system but I’ve read classroom studies that included eye tracking data. I need to take a closer look at what has been happening with this method of data collection
I'd be interested to know what you think. There are a few systems that use eye tracking but as far as I know, Lexplore is the only one that uses AI to analyse the saccadic patterns.
The idea is interesting, but my initial reaction if this: Lexplore is an example of betting on the wrong horse. Yes, there likely are differences in fixation duration, direction of saccadic movement, and regressions. Lexplore is based on the Simple View of reading which is inadequate, in my view. The selling points emphasize using Lexplore as “backup evidence” to support teacher judgement. My provisional opinion based on what I’ve seen in the brochure and what I know of robust uses of eye tracking data? I wouldn’t consider it useful and potentially problematic.
I so appreciate this post! In naming and articulating a specific (and scientific) concept for what is such a common practice in Reading Recovery, you’ve brought its significance further into the light. Thank you!
In my own work, I have predominantly focused on analyzing my own and other Reading Recovery teachers’ instructional talk through David Wood’s framework on scaffolding and contingent tutoring. It’s fascinating to see how Floridi’s Levels of Abstraction offer another scientific lens for understanding the complexity of what teachers do every day in this context.
You have taken an invisible part of Reading Recovery teaching and given it a name, showing how our careful observations fit within a larger, rigorously scientific system. I look forward to your next article!
I hope so, Marnie! I tried to insist that letters and sounds are important by using them as examples when I could. But to focus instruction just on letters and sounds (the default to the lowest LoA of a disjointed linear progression of skills as the SoR has interpreted Yarbrough's reading rope) is a category error. The highest level of abstraction (meaning-making across a text) must be in the teacher's mind even while assessing the visual system. Floridi's approach won't let us make these category mistakes, and Marie Clay understood LoA intuitively fifty years ago. The teacher must see the whole performance and help the learner reach for it when the learner can't see it by scaffolding the core strategies and skills that make the performance what it is. What amazing intellectual work she accomplished!
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."
Your article really got me thinking! I came up with a visual and philosophical approach to compliment Floridi's Levels of Abstraction (LoA): https://dustinmattison.substack.com/p/tools-for-teaching-writing-that-ai I look forward to seeing your next articles about how to apply the LoA concepts to writing.
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts here, Terry and am very much looking forward to the next essays in the series. I thought the application of Floridi's concepts to the field of reading assessment was very interesting and I wondered if you are familiar with Lexplore's eye-tracking system which gives the teacher a remarkably 'low altitude' insight into a child's reading ability?
I’m not familiar with this eye tracking system but I’ve read classroom studies that included eye tracking data. I need to take a closer look at what has been happening with this method of data collection
I'd be interested to know what you think. There are a few systems that use eye tracking but as far as I know, Lexplore is the only one that uses AI to analyse the saccadic patterns.
The idea is interesting, but my initial reaction if this: Lexplore is an example of betting on the wrong horse. Yes, there likely are differences in fixation duration, direction of saccadic movement, and regressions. Lexplore is based on the Simple View of reading which is inadequate, in my view. The selling points emphasize using Lexplore as “backup evidence” to support teacher judgement. My provisional opinion based on what I’ve seen in the brochure and what I know of robust uses of eye tracking data? I wouldn’t consider it useful and potentially problematic.
I so appreciate this post! In naming and articulating a specific (and scientific) concept for what is such a common practice in Reading Recovery, you’ve brought its significance further into the light. Thank you!
In my own work, I have predominantly focused on analyzing my own and other Reading Recovery teachers’ instructional talk through David Wood’s framework on scaffolding and contingent tutoring. It’s fascinating to see how Floridi’s Levels of Abstraction offer another scientific lens for understanding the complexity of what teachers do every day in this context.
You have taken an invisible part of Reading Recovery teaching and given it a name, showing how our careful observations fit within a larger, rigorously scientific system. I look forward to your next article!
I hope so, Marnie! I tried to insist that letters and sounds are important by using them as examples when I could. But to focus instruction just on letters and sounds (the default to the lowest LoA of a disjointed linear progression of skills as the SoR has interpreted Yarbrough's reading rope) is a category error. The highest level of abstraction (meaning-making across a text) must be in the teacher's mind even while assessing the visual system. Floridi's approach won't let us make these category mistakes, and Marie Clay understood LoA intuitively fifty years ago. The teacher must see the whole performance and help the learner reach for it when the learner can't see it by scaffolding the core strategies and skills that make the performance what it is. What amazing intellectual work she accomplished!