Responses to the commentaries
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.
Greeno, J. G. (2011)., Responses to the commentaries, in T. Koschmann (ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 139-150.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.