"Alignment: A situative framework for theories of understanding and valid
reasoning"
James Greeno

Recent research considers understanding and reasoning as aspects of
social practice. This undermines theories that treat criteria of
understanding, validity, soundness, etc. unconditionally (i.e.,
independently of the practices in which they are embedded). One possible
response is to deny any general principles of understanding and
reasoning. A second possibility is to deny that anything that deviates
from our accepted principles can count as understanding or valid
reasoning. To escape these dreary alternatives, I propose that we
theorize more generally, with the hope of getting a framework that
supports analyses of different versions of understanding and reasoning
that accomplish respectable functions, partly to support educational
practices that are more effective and inclusive. I offer alignment as an
organizing idea for such a framework. This idea characterizes
understanding and reasoning as activities of constraint satisfaction, in
which constraints include alignments between people and between domains
of information and experience. We will watch video clips of some
students; in one episode their reasoning went awry, and in another they
corrected themselves, avoiding a mistake. I'll offer an analysis in terms
of interpersonal and informational alignments.