Abstract
I am honored by and grateful for the careful, thoughtful, stimulating commentaries given by Bredo, Collins, Macbeth, and McClain. Eric Bredo’s commentary clarifies the aims and means of my effort, concludes generously that I accomplished the aims that I took on, and did not accomplish some that I might have been thought to attempt. I offer a pointer toward possible development in that direction. Doug Macbeth’s commentary presents a fundamental challenge to the program that I am trying to contribute to. Macbeth challenges the aim of explanatory hypotheses. In response, I discuss recent development of a concept of mechanistic explanation in philosophy of science, which I believe is consistent with the accounts of activity that I have proposed as well as with those provided in ethnomethodology, including Macbeth’s accounts here. Kay McClain’s commentary correctly argues that my paper neglected important functions of teachers in determining the agenda for their classrooms. I am grateful for McClain’s suggestion that the theoretical frame that I have been working to develop could provide a contribution to the field of teacher development. Allan Collins’s commentary discusses representational and metarepresentational competence, including an important issue of designing activities in which students develop both technical capabilities for representational practices and positive intellective identities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New York: Routledge.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.
Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Devlin, K. (1991). Logic and information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
diSessa, A. A, Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117–160.
Gordon, E. W., & Bridglall, B. L. (Eds.). (2007). Affirmative development: Cultivating academic ability. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. (1997, January). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.
Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, A. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9, 179–210.
Hall, R., Wright, K., & Wieckert, K. (2006). Interactive and historical processes of distributing statistical concepts through work organization. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 1–25.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1953). The logic of explanation. In H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 319–352). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (originally published, 1948).
Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2006). Thinking about mechanisms. In L. Darden (Ed.), Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution (pp. 13–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (originally published, 2000).
Miyake, N. (1986). Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science, 10, 151–177.
Peirce, C. S. (1955). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 98–119). New York: Dover (originally published, 1897–1910).
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–184.
Stenning, K. (2002). Seeing reason: Image and language in learning to think. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding Volume 1: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Greeno, J.G. (2011). Responses to the Commentaries. In: Koschmann, T. (eds) Theories of Learning and Studies of Instructional Practice. Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies, vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7582-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7582-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-7581-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7582-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)